Oral Answers to Questions

DEFENCE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Iraq

Andrew MacKay: If he will make a statement on the security situation in Iraq.

Patrick Mercer: If he will make a statement on operations in Iraq.

John Reid: Despite the best efforts of terrorists to destabilise Iraq, the Iraqi people continue to build their democracy and their own security forces. Fifteen million Iraqis have registered to vote in their elections on this coming Thursday. The Iraqi security forces now participate in 80 per cent. of operations and will lead the operations on Thursday. We wish them well.

Andrew MacKay: As Christmas approaches, will the Secretary of State convey to our troops in Iraq the heartfelt thanks of every Member and that our thoughts will be with them at what will inevitably be a difficult time?
	Would the Secretary of State care to comment on President Bush's recent remark that, sadly, the reconstruction process is going much slower than we wished because of the security difficulties? What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that those security difficulties are lessened in Basra and the areas for which we have responsibility?

John Reid: I join the right hon. Gentleman as, I am sure, does the whole House in sending our thanks and gratitude, especially at this time of year, to servicemen and women who are away from their families. I was able to do that in person about nine days ago when I visited our troops in Iraq.
	It is true that developing democracy, security, and the economy and civil society in Iraq is slower than we would wish for this simple reason: the Iraqi democrats, with our support, are building democracy, security and the economy, but the terrorists are trying to destroy it. They will not win. On democracy, despite the threats of the terrorists, 8.5 million people came out to vote in January; more than 10 million came out to vote in the referendum in October and 15 million have registered for the vote this Thursday. Nor will the terrorists win when it comes to building the security forces. When I first came to the Dispatch Box as Secretary of State I think I said that we had trained and capable security forces in Iraq to the number of 160,000. I can tell the House today that the number is more than 214,000, and 80 per cent. of all operations involve Iraqi security forces. Though the terrorists may do their worst, the entrenchment of democracy, security and stability in Iraq will continue and we will continue to help the Iraqi people to do that for as long as is necessary.

Patrick Mercer: The Secretary of State will know as well as the rest of us that recently several brave young men have been killed by roadside bombs, the responsibility for which has been laid fairly and squarely at the feet of Iran by our ambassador to Baghdad and also by our commander in Basra. When asked about Iran's behaviour the Secretary of State said:
	"That is a risky way for anyone to behave, so we hope that it does not continue."—[Official Report, 10 October 2005; Vol. 437, c. 34.]
	Have we anything more to offer our young men who face death and danger on a daily basis than empty rhetoric?

John Reid: I will ignore the hon. Gentleman's churlish comment. I can assure him that I and the Chiefs of Staff, and everyone engaged in the armed forces, are doing everything possible to make sure that at tactical and equipment level we bring in whatever protection we can before, if possible, any advances in terrorist capability. I am afraid that the substantial rhetoric that he would require for us to outline that at the Dispatch Box would do nothing but give assistance to the terrorists who are trying to kill our troops. Given the hon. Gentleman's position, I would have thought that he understood that.
	On Iran, we have never said that the matter could be linked to the Iranian Government but the use of some of those explosives and improvised explosive devices can be traced to Hezbollah and Iranian elements. Of course, that is only part of the reason why the international community is so worried about the conduct and statements of Iran and Iranian politicians.

Gavin Strang: Has my right hon. Friend had the time to read the Oxford Research Group report released yesterday? Although I realise that he will not want to anticipate the outcome of the elections, does he agree that it is of concern that many Sunnis see the foreign forces in their land as partisan towards Shi'as and Kurds?

John Reid: I am glad that the Sunnis have been registering in higher numbers than ever for the elections coming this Thursday, which will be a major step forward, and I hope that that is part of a continuing process in ensuring that the new democratic Iraq represents all elements of Iraqi society, not just the Shi'a, the Kurds and others, but the Sunnis. As for the presence of multinational forces there, with great respect to anyone—academic or otherwise—in this country, I prefer to rely on the expressions of intent and the explanations of the democratically elected Iraqi politicians, who have made it absolutely plain that our forces are there at their request to do a job that they cannot do at the moment, which is to safeguard their fledgling democracy, but that, as soon as the Iraqi security forces are capable of defending their own democracy, they will ask us to hand over, and I can tell the House that we will be delighted to hand over. So we would be well advised on these occasions to listen to the views of the Iraqi democratically elected politicians, as we would expect them to listen not to minorities or fringe groups in this country, but to the democratic will of the House of Commons.

Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Secretary of State aware that, over the weekend, a peace conference on Iraq was organised in London by the Stop the War coalition and other groups, that many of the speakers at that conference were from Iraq, from parties that are contesting the elections in Iraq and, indeed, in some cases, are already represented in the National Assembly in Iraq, and that they all made the point that the security situation gets ever worse the longer that British and American forces remain in occupation of Iraq and that the best way forward was to name a date for the end of the occupation, so that the Iraq people themselves can take over the country, rather than continuing with an occupying force that seems to have brought a awful lot of terror into the country?

John Reid: Of course, there are other voices in Iraq—the ones who get elected—and the overwhelming majority of them welcome our presence there. President Talabani, President Barzani, Prime Minister Jafaari, Minister of the Interior Jabr, whom I met eight days ago, Defence Minister Delami—the Government of Iraq—have expressed their desire for us to stay there until they get the stability and security to defend their own democracy.
	Alternatively, we could look, of course, at the opinion poll that the BBC commissioned and issued this morning that shows that between 64 and 69 per cent. of Iraqis believe that they have a more positive future, with only 11 per cent. thinking that the future will get worse. I dare say that that is a higher percentage of people who are optimistic about the future in Iraq than would be recorded in this country. However, the point is that if we look at the practice on the ground, 8.5 million people came out and voted, despite the threat from bombs and bullets, and 10.5 million came out and voted in the referendum, despite the threat of being murdered or massacred. The turnout was 64 per cent.—bigger than the turnout here in a general election—and 15 million people are registered, despite all the threats, to vote next Thursday. That is the voice of the people of Iraq that we should listen to.

Angus Robertson: Does the Red Cross and the Red Crescent have full access to all suspects taken into custody by UK forces in Iraq? Does the UK condone coalition allies who do not allow the Red Cross access to all prisoners?

John Reid: To the best of my knowledge, the International Committee of the Red Cross has such access.

Andrew MacKinlay: What opportunities are there for members of the Home Service Battalion of the Royal Irish Regiment to serve in Iraq, bearing in mind that they are highly trained, very capable soldiers? Surely there is capacity perhaps to get some companies from that battalion to operate in Iraq, to the benefit of not only those dedicated soldiers, but United Kingdom operations.

John Reid: My hon. Friend will know that, uniquely among British troops, the Home Service Battalion of the Royal Irish Regiment, by institution, is confined to the geographical area of one part of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland—because of the troubles there over decades. However, he is right to point to the fact that individuals from the Home Service Battalion have volunteered, been trained and served with distinction in Iraq.

Andrew MacKinlay: What about companies?

John Reid: Such things cannot happen with formations of the Home Service Battalion, but individuals have served, as many people from other regiments have done, on attachment with the basic regiments that are serving in Iraq.

Liam Fox: On Iraq, the Foreign Secretary said this morning:
	"Mistakes have been made subsequent to the war."
	What mistakes were these, and which were the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Defence and his Ministers?

John Reid: In retrospect, I think that the process of de-Ba'athification probably went too far, too rapidly. That is now being reversed to some extent, for example with the willingness of the army in Iraq to take back former serving members of the Ba'ath party up to the rank of major. I would like to have seen a quicker response on an invitation to the Sunnis—despite theirboycott—to participate in the constitutional commission. With the value of hindsight, which is, of course, the only exact science known to man and woman, we would have taken in more troops as a multinational invasion force to overcome an entrenched enemy. I am sure that there are several other matters to which we could point with hindsight. However, I stress that in terms of the generality of opportunity, freedom, democracy and security in Iraq, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the correct position was followed, that a threat has been removed from the world, and that a burden was taken off the backs of the Iraqi people when the dictator Saddam Hussein was removed.

Liam Fox: I am quite clear that the intervention has been of net benefit to the people of Iraq, yet we heard reports this morning that British troops might be withdrawn as early as the first part of next year. Is that correct? What discussions have taken place about a timetable, and on what criteria, and by whom, will it be decided that a handover is appropriate?

John Reid: I have made the position plain to the House several times, but I understand that the hon. Gentleman was not in his present office then, so I have no problem in reiterating it. There is no immutable timetable. The handover to the Iraqi security forces will be set primarily not by timetable, but by conditions. Those conditions are the ability of the Iraqi security forces to lead operations with our support at first, which would allow us to remove to barracks, and then to lead on their own, which would allow us to leave the country. That would be a process, not an event, but since July, I have said that that process could well begin in parts of Iraq, including our area, in the course of next year. Therefore, what was said in the past 48 hours here and what was said last week by the President of the United States was completely in accord with the conditions that I set down for victory: the handover to the Iraqi security forces themselves.

David Winnick: While we recognise that there are arguments about coalition troops leaving Iraq and that the coalition has undoubtedly made serious mistakes in the past two years, would it not be useful if those who organised the sort of conferences mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) also condemned in the strongest possible way the terrorism that occurs day in and day out against innocent Iraqis, which in no way could be described as acts of liberation or anything of the kind? If there is a responsibility on us to recognise mistakes that have been made during the occupation, surely the critics have a responsibility to condemn along the lines that I have urged.

John Reid: Well, not for the first time on these matters, I agree with every word that my hon. Friend says. When we analyse tactical mistakes that have been made, it would be helpful to consider the strategic nature of what has happened.
	Personally, I have never had a principled problem with removing fascists from power, and it surprises me that some people on the Labour Benches appear to have developed one. As for the people of Iraq, I have never claimed, and nor would I, that everything is perfect by any means. However, I am absolutely sure that the acts of the terrorists—the murder and massacre of pilgrims, ordinary working Muslims and children both inside and outside Iraq, for instance in Amman in Jordan recently when 29 of the people killed were Palestinians—should be utterly condemned by every single Member of the House. I am amazed that they are not repeatedly condemned in the way in which I would expect.

Afghanistan

Edward Vaizey: What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in Afghanistan.

Graham Stuart: If he will make a statement on the security situation in Afghanistan.

John Reid: The security situation in Afghanistan is broadly stable, but some areas are less settled than others. Our armed forces are playing a pivotal role in security assistance, helping the Government of Afghanistan to create a prosperous, democratic and secure country, and denying terrorists a base from which to prepare attacks.

Edward Vaizey: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. May I echo the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay), and extend the heartiest good wishes of the House to our troops—our serving men and women—who are deployed in Afghanistan?
	Can the Secretary of State give the House an update on the security incidents that have occurred in Afghanistan? I only ask because one of my constituents contacted me—he has a son serving in Afghanistan—to say that at the end of November two Swedish soldiers were killed and that in October a RAF Tornado had been destroyed and another one badly damaged. I had not heard those reports before and I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman can give us an update on incidents against our troops and our said forces in Afghanistan.

John Reid: Tragically, it is true that not only ourselves but I believe the Portuguese and the Germans have lost personnel in Afghanistan. At this stage, however, we do not believe that that represents a step change in the violence that is occurring there, but several incidents in Kabul should have served to remove anyone's complacency. We—when I say "we", I mean NATO—are in the north and the west of Afghanistan. I have already said that we will deploy the headquarters of the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps to Kabul in the middle of next year, around May. In principle, I am prepared to see a significant contribution from British troops to the south of Afghanistan as NATO expands from the north, the west and to the south. I also said that that last decision, in principle, had to be subject to the correct military configuration from the British point of view, the correct multinational dimension and configuration within NATO and the correct complementary assistance in aid and development resources in terms of our counter-narcotics strategy to offer alternative livelihoods. All of those issues stand and no final decision has been made on the second point regarding British troops.

Graham Stuart: Is not the lesson of past insurgencies that only proactive patrolling and control of territory offers long-term security? Is the Secretary of State satisfied that all NATO contingencies have taken this lesson to heart?

John Reid: On the first point, yes; on the second, not entirely. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is a source of concern that the proliferation of caveats issued by the various multinational forces may impede effective operation and co-operation in the multinational force. We continue to discuss these matters at every redeployment and at every phase, as we will in phase 3, if we go into the south. Significant contributions to the effort in Afghanistan have come from nations not only inside NATO but outside, with help from colleagues such as the Australians.

Michael Moore: First, may I associate myself with the comments of the Secretary of State and of others about the bravery of our armed forces wherever they serve throughout the world? We have particular thoughts for them at this time of year.
	Following the NATO ministerial meeting last week, the Secretary-General stressed that the organisation could not work in a void and that other international actors should stay equally committed. Within NATO, can the right hon. Gentleman set out how the United States will contribute to the proposed new ISAF—international security assistance force—plans? Can he confirm that the United States will maintain its current overall level of military commitment to Afghanistan? Given the proposed area in which UK armed forces will operate, is there any intention that British military personnel should become a significant part of the counter-terrorism efforts of Operation Enduring Freedom.

John Reid: The hon. Gentleman asked a host of questions, but I shall try to tackle a couple of the biggest ones. The number of US forces fluctuate, as is the case for any other nation, but there is no reason to believe that they should not continue to make a significant contribution to Afghanistan in future. I do not think, however, that there will be a huge difference from the number of forces deployed there today. Our contribution to the ISAF operation will essentially be the reconstruction remit, which is the responsibility of NATO, rather than counter-terrorism, which is the purpose of the American mission—Operation Enduring Freedom. However, I stress that wherever NATO troops are in Afghanistan they may be liable to attacks from insurgents. If they are attacked by insurgents and terrorists, of course we will defend ourselves—that is the nature of the rules of engagement and of our remit. There is not a complete distinction between counter-terrorism and counter-narcotics. During counter-narcotics operations, for example, insurgents or terrorists, some of whom gain income from narcotics, may be provoked to attack those who are attempting to stop the trade. The distinction is therefore not a neat one, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, overall, the US troops, who have taken significant risks and shown great courage in the face of danger, will remain there for a considerable time.

Liam Fox: Can the Secretary of State tell the House about his discussions with our NATO allies about the rules of engagement? When does he expect to make an announcement about a further deployment of UK forces, and does he agree that it would be absolute folly for different NATO troops to operate in Afghanistan under different rules of engagement?

John Reid: I think it is inconvenient, but it is not necessarily an utter folly to have different rules of engagement in different areas, as different forces are undertaking different tasks. Some may be training the Afghan army, some may be assisting the resurrection of the judicial system, and some may be training police. However, I fully accept that the nearer one comes to a combat situation, the better it is to have rules of engagement that allow maximum flexibility when engaging with the enemy, which is why we have continual discussions on these matters with our colleagues. As for the south, I can confirm that we continue to hold discussions with the Supreme Allied Commander Europe and with NATO. I have spoken to Bill Graham, Robert Hill and Henk Kamp, my opposite numbers in Canada, Australia and the Netherlands about the possibility of going into the south and the configuration that we will use. However, as I have said, we have not achieved a final configuration that satisfies me that the configuration that Britain is prepared to provide is suitably encompassed within a NATO configuration. When we reach that stage I will, of course, make an announcement on deployment to the House. I would merely say that the delay in that final decision has not caused any risk of lack of preparation or training for our troops, because my right hon. Friend the armed forces Minister announced some weeks ago that training and preparations would go ahead on a contingency basis.

Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill

Adam Afriyie: What discussions he has had with the Prime Minister on the possible effects of the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill on Army efficiency and morale.

Adam Ingram: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not had any discussions with the Prime Minister on the possible effects of the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill on Army efficiency and morale.

Adam Afriyie: It seems to me that common agreement has developed over hundreds of years in our nation that time does not diminish the severity of a crime, especially murder and terrorism. On the one hand, the Government appear to seek to lock up unconvicted terrorists in Britain, so can the right hon. Gentleman explain in clear terms why, on the other, they seek to release convicted terrorists in Northern Ireland?

Adam Ingram: We have to look at the situation in the round and over the piece. Preceding Governments at all times tried to find a way through the very difficult situation that we faced in Northern Ireland. I spent four years as the Minister responsible for security there. I reflect on every piece of legislation that I had to put through—the decommissioning legislation, the early release of prisoners legislation, the policing reform legislation and the public procession legislation. Each time, we were told that that would be the end of civilisation as we knew it, that it was an outrage and that it was totally wrong. Where are we now? We have a peaceful environment in Northern Ireland, which could not have been envisaged four or five years ago. There are still issues that must be addressed and big matters to attend to. There is no question but that the Bill is painful and difficult, and visits itself most dramatically on the victims of terrorism. They are the community that must be considered in this process, but if we want a peaceful future, we must take such painful decisions and the associated risks.

Hugh Bayley: My right hon.   Friend has had a great deal of experience anddistinguished service as a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office. Does he agree that the peace process has required compromise by all parties, and that the benefits that it has brought, principally to the people of Northern Ireland but also to our armed forces—the peace dividend—is valuable, and that if one fails to take difficult decisions, the process may backslide? The Government must take difficult decisions in order to secure the gains that have been made so far.

Adam Ingram: I agree entirely. That is what I was trying to get across in my earlier answer. I reflect that every time we come up against those difficult decisions, and remembering the various constituencies out there, if we did not make those changes, we would still be in the troubled period of past decades. Previous Administrations, not just the present one, understood that. They understood that there had to be such a process and that, by definition, it would come up against very difficult decisions. I have expressed my view on the extent of those difficulties and where they visit themselves most dramatically. I also reflect on our armed forces and the security forces overall—the many hundreds of them who have lost their lives in the struggle. I pay tribute to them. We would not be in our current position had it not been for their determination, fortitude, skill and, in the case of too many of them, their ultimate sacrifice. The process is difficult and we will continue to do what is right for the people of Northern Ireland.

Patrick Cormack: The Minister is clearly not comfortable with the Bill, which is probably the most unpopular brought before the House in living memory. Does he accept that it will hold up the restoration of devolution, rather than accelerate it?

Adam Ingram: I do not think that that is necessarily a matter for me—that is what Northern Ireland Ministers are for—but I have pointed out that at each step, each time we come up against difficult legislation, we have to reflect, consider and decide what is best. The Bill is undoubtedly a difficult piece of legislation. I do not demur from that point of view at all. The question is whether it is necessary and whether it will move the process forward. Some will say no, some will say yes, and only time will tell whether we got it right.

Gregory Campbell: Is the Minister aware that the morale of the Home Service Battalion of the Royal Irish Regiment is low because of the pernicious provisions contained in the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, but that it is also low because of the outstanding issue regarding the future of that battalion and its members' financial package, which must recognise the courage and commitment of those soldiers in the front line for so long?

Adam Ingram: Yes, I do. Only a few weeks ago I met many of those who serve in the Home Service and I took them through some of the reasoning for what we are currently engaged in. I think they knew, as we all know, that ultimately, if we get peace, such a standing force will no longer be required. We have to manage our way through the process. I pay tribute to all that they have done over the past 37 years, and to the civil servants who have worked in the Ministry of Defence alongside the Home Service Battalion and the many tens of thousands of regular soldiers who have served in Northern Ireland. They made a major contribution to bringing stability and peace to Northern Ireland, and we have to find the best solution to manage the conclusion to that step in the process when they are disbanded or, in the case of the MOD civil servants, their tasks are no longer required.

Iraq

Sharon Hodgson: If he will make a statement on the development of the Iraqi security force.

John Reid: We are continuing to build the capability of the Iraqi security forces so that they are increasingly able to take responsibility for delivering law and order themselves. The Iraqi security forces will provide the immediate security for the planned elections this Thursday and oversee the whole event.

Sharon Hodgson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that this Thursday's elections will further marginalise the violent forces and increase the prospects of victory and of liberation by Iraqi democrats, especially the new trade unions, which need solidarity from the international community and the British Labour movement, including groups such as Labour Friends of Iraq?

John Reid: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. This Thursday's elections will be a huge step forward for the people of Iraq, the country of Iraq and the middle east as a whole. Despite all of the threats, 8.5 million people turned out in January, 10.5 million people turned out in October and 15 million people are now registered. I only hope that the people of this country pay attention on Thursday to what the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are saying by coming out to use their new-found freedoms in the same way as some commentators in this country continually pay attention to the minority who are attempting to destroy Iraqi democracy and Iraqi lives.

Robert Wilson: What is the Secretary of State's estimate of the impact of UK-based private companies on the security situation in Iraq? And what plans does he have to sign new contracts with those private companies?

John Reid: I do not have any estimate of those companies' contribution to the overall security situation, which primarily lies in the hands of the multinational forces, who are handing over to Iraqi forces. Iraqi forces are increasingly becoming trained, capable and able to take over leadership on security, which they will do on Thursday of this week, and they are the people who will ultimately play the major role. The multinational divisions or any private companies who are temporarily providing a degree of security will remove themselves from Iraq as soon as the Iraqi security forces and the democratically elected Government of Iraq want it to happen.

Defence Training

Patrick McFadden: If he will make a statement on the future of defence training.

Don Touhig: The defence training review programme will deliver specialist training on a defence rather than single service basis. Our vision is to create national centres of training excellence, giving our people the best opportunities, training and living environment that we can provide. Modern training methods and technology will be introduced, and training will be concentrated on a reduced number of sites to give the Ministry of Defence the flexibility that it needs to match training demand to defence needs.

Patrick McFadden: I thank the Minister for his reply. Will he acknowledge the tremendous strengths of Cosford as the site for future combined defence training, given its ideal transport links to the main areas of armed forces recruitment and its place as part of a critical mass of IT, aerospace and engineering skills, which exist in abundance throughout the west midlands?

Don Touhig: I will certainly pay tribute to the work that goes on at Cosford and to the Members of Parliament who represent that area and who look after the interests of its people. The defence training review will have an impact on Defence Estates, but future plans for RAF Cosford will not be decided until a decision has been taken on the defence training review.

Robert Key: On behalf of all the civilian communities around the defence training areas, notably Salisbury plain, may I say how much we appreciate the increasing professionalism of the management of those training areas? It is important that the permanent staff who maintain them retain their special links with all the parish councils and civilian communities that make up the everyday life of those estates. If they sometimes slip a little over some detail, they will normally put things right as quickly as possible, but use of the training estates has intensified massively and those relationships are very fragile.

Don Touhig: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. We are determined to have good neighbourly relations with all those with whom we work closely across the country. The creation of centres of training excellence that will be acknowledged and admired globally will not only enable our people to be recognised for their skills while they serve in the front line but make them valuable employees when they later become civilians. That impacts on the work that we are doing on the defence training estates. When a decision is taken and the programme is finally presented, that will benefit us all. I have no doubt that in the new environment we will want to work closely with our very good neighbours.

Brian Jenkins: My hon. Friend recognises that the British armed forces are among the best trained in the world and that the qualifications that they gain in training are second to none. The words that he is uttering at the Dispatch Box as regards centralising training are music to my ears. However, will he give an assurance that that will involve the best centres—those that have been the most cost-effective and have turned out, consistently and on time, the right numbers of recruits? Will he use that as the basis of building up the centres of excellence that are important for the future of this country?

Don Touhig: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that those are the criteria on which we must base our decision. The decision that we ultimately take must be taken in the best interests of this country and of the Ministry of Defence.

Mark Pritchard: Can the Minister give me an assurance that in the defence training review St. Athan in Wales will not be given a competitive advantage over RAF Cosford in my constituency as a result of Welsh Development Agency money being used to promote it?

Don Touhig: I cannot possibly comment on whether WDA money is being used, but I can try to reassure the hon. Gentleman by saying that I have no doubt that all bidders understand the potential of RAF St. Athan as regards the defence training review. I am not in a position to comment on the various sites. However, I assure all right hon. and hon. Members that, based on all the information that we are given at the time, we will take the right decision in the interests of the country and of the Ministry of Defence. That is the only criterion that we can possibly use. No location should be given any special favours.

Ken Purchase: My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. McFadden) commented on the excellent location of Cosford, but it is equally important that all the off-balance-sheet and hidden subsidies that may be at play in the competition must be seen in the context of who can provide the very best location for the service. I believe that that means it will come to Cosford.

Don Touhig: My hon. Friend may well be right, but I cannot possibly comment at this stage.

Iran

Philip Hollobone: What assessment he has made of the potential threat to NATO countries and armies of the development of long-range missile technology in Iran.

John Reid: We continually monitor the potential threat that long-range missiles present to NATO countries and armies. Iran already has short and medium-range missiles in service, some of which could reach NATO territory, and its potential for developing longer-range missiles has been recognised for some time.

Philip Hollobone: What assessment have Her Majesty's Government made of the potential leakage to Iran of personnel and knowledge connected with Pakistan's nuclear programme?

John Reid: We continually keep that under review. It is not possible, by the very nature of intelligence matters, to be definite about these things. However, we know, for instance, that Iran has made no secret of its aspirations to develop a satellite launch capability, which of course has a very close relationship with the technology required for longer-range missile systems. We also know that Iran is proclaiming its desire to develop civil nuclear capacity in the context of the International Atomic Energy Agency's revelations that it has been trying to deceive the international community by developing a nuclear weapons facility. There are also the public statements by the President of Iran, threatening to wipe off the map another member of the United Nations. Taken together, those matters alert us to a serious problem, which is not only ours but that of the international community.

Michael Clapham: I listened to what my right hon. Friend said with great interest. He knows that countries in the South Caucasus such as Azerbaijan, Armenia and Kazakhstan have close relations with NATO—they are members of the partnership for peace programme—but they also have good relations with Iran. Does he believe that we could encourage those countries to build better relationships with Iran that might lead to a better understanding of NATO's role?

John Reid: Undoubtedly, we would all, including the United Kingdom Government, like better relationships with Iran. We would much prefer problems to be tackled in a civilised, diplomatic and fraternal fashion. That is why the United Kingdom has led the European three with France and Germany, and I pay tribute to the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on that. We want to try to resolve the problem through diplomatic means.
	However, that is not helped by statements such as those by the President of Iran, revelations of a secret development or attempt to develop nuclear weapons, or a breach by Iran of its obligations under the non-proliferation treaty. That is a challenge not only to us but to the international community and the United Nations. However, we are doing what we can to resolve the matter diplomatically and I hope that the Iranians will respond and go back to their original action—to stop the unwelcome restarting of the uranium conversion facility at Isfahan and suspend those activities while we try to resolve the problems diplomatically.

Julian Lewis: Does the Secretary of State recall the powerful speech that the Prime Minister made in March 2003, when he described the nightmare scenario of a rogue regime with nuclear or WMD technology and the means to deliver it coming together with fundamentalist extremists who would want to use such weapons? Is not that combination ready made in Iran? Is he as worried as I am by the statement over the weekend that Israel is actively planning military action, and can he inject his sorrowful and concerned tone, with which we all concur, with greater urgency? The matter should be at the top of the international agenda.

John Reid: Yes, I believe that it should be at the top of the international agenda. I am sorry if my tone today is emollient and sorrowful rather than aggressive. I am trying to find my sorrowful side on the matter after advice from so many Conservative colleagues.
	Notwithstanding that, the problem is serious for the reasons that I outlined. They include not only our concern about the link with the attempts to kill our troops in Iraq but the statements threatening to wipe Israel off the map, the history of clandestine attempts to develop nuclear weapons and the possibility of long-range missile delivery systems. All that is difficult, but solving the problem diplomatically would serve the world better. I therefore assure the hon. Gentleman that the greatest urgency and priority has been given to the matter and I simply ask him to witness the efforts, energies and time-consuming dedication that the Foreign Secretary has shown on it. It is our profound wish that this matter be solved quickly and diplomatically, and the way for that to happen expeditiously is for Iran to return to the suspension of the facilities and the conversion, as it promised to do earlier, and to enter into serious negotiations in an attempt to resolve the issue.

David Drew: I hear what my right hon. Friend says about diplomacy. Does he agree, however, that the role of Pakistan is important in this regard, particularly the role that A.Q. Khan played in supposedly giving information on nuclear weaponry to the Government of Iran? Would it not be a good idea if that information were shared more widely, and if, rather than keeping A.Q. Khan under house arrest in Islamabad, he were made available to those who know what has happened, so that we can really see what information the Iranians have?

John Reid: It certainly seems to me—as it presumably does to most objective observers of these events—that the proliferation of information, advice, tuition and details from the A.Q. Khan network has been one of the most dangerous examples of proliferation in recent years. If my hon. Friend's comment was an implicit criticism of President Musharraf, however, I will not join him in that. The President of Pakistan is making a serious effort in attempting to resolve the crisis with India in Kashmir, to restrain the excesses of the madrassahs, and to ensure a diminution of the entry of terrorism into Afghanistan. However, Iran itself has now declared that it has received offers of information on developing nuclear weaponry, and the proliferation of such information is very worrying indeed. As I said, the way to resolve this issue is for Iran to come back to the negotiating table and to respond to the efforts being made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and by France and Germany to engage diplomatically on these matters.

Bowman

David Heath: How many military vehicles were programmed to be converted for Bowman; and how many have been converted.

Adam Ingram: More than 20,156 land mobile platforms were in the original Bowman contract for conversion and, as of 7 December 2005, some 3,845 have been converted.

David Heath: Bowman represents a huge improvement in potential capability. Is the Minister aware, however, of the frustrations being expressed to me by many serving officers and NCOs—non-commissioned officers—that vehicles are going for refitting and simply not coming back to their units, sometimes because of delays in the workshops and sometimes because of nonsense in the specifications, such as leads being provided that are too short for anything other than standard vehicles? The result of these problems is frustration in the operational units, and expensively acquired training decaying while people wait for the vehicles on which they can put their skills into use. Most importantly, perhaps, essential units are not in the state of readiness that they ought to be. Can anything be done to remove the logjam?

Adam Ingram: Bowman represents an important step change and a considerable improvement. I was recently on HMS Bulwark with 40 Commando Royal Marines, who were extolling the virtues of what they had been trained to provide, saying that it would give them greater punch as an expeditionary force. Bowman is, however, a very complex system, and we have unquestionably encountered difficulties as we have gone along. A lot of that has been to do with the age of some of the vehicles, and with the non-availability of some essential pieces of equipment, which we are trying to source. We are discovering aspects of the vehicles that are presenting difficulties because their original specification included individual fits, which have to be worked round. We are fully conscious of the fact that there is a crying demand out there for the conversion programme to be advanced so as to bring those vehicles into service, and we are doing all that we can to achieve that. We know that this is a very important piece of equipment that will provide a tremendous step change, and we shall continue to try to meet the deadline of the end of 2007 as best we can.

Tobias Ellwood: The roll-out of the Bowman radio system must be one of the more embarrassing procurement projects that the Army has had to endure. Our armed forces have rightly been praised, and all Members share in that, but such praise is often not matched by our encouragement and support for the procurement process. Does the Minister agree that waiting 40 years for the replacement of a radio system is far too long?

Adam Ingram: I know that the hon. Gentleman is new to the House, but had he been around at the time he would have remembered the criticisms of the previous contract, which was probably best described as a disaster on legs—or, more appropriately, a disaster on wheels and tracked vehicles. It was not well designed and managed, and had to be renegotiated under this Government. We have faced difficulties and we now have an incredibly potent piece of kit, both in terms of the voice system and, as we roll it out, the data system. That will provide a step change and a new way of communicating between command centres, the front line and back again. It will lift the capability of the armed forces to a first-class level, and that is what is wanted. Everywhere that it has been implemented, it has been warmly received, and people say, "Give us more and move to the next phase." We are doing all of that. It has been difficult, but much of that history rests with the previous Tory Government.

Relief Effort (Pakistan)

Sadiq Khan: What role UK Chinooks have played in disaster relief in Pakistan.

Adam Ingram: UK armed forces have provided significant and wide-ranging assistance to the Pakistan earthquake relief effort. That has included three heavy-lift Chinook helicopters, a specialist 86-man light engineering team, a four-person mobile medical team, four logistics planners, three C130 transport aircraft as part of the NATO air bridge, and 24,000 vegetarian and halal ration packs.

Sadiq Khan: My right hon. Friend might be aware that I recently visited the areas affected by the earthquake in Pakistan, and I had the pleasure of meeting the Chinook teams working there around the clock. One of the contributions that he did not list was that our men and women can load and unload a Chinook faster than the Americans—we are doing three sorties a day. First, will he join me in congratulating our men and women? Secondly, will he consider speaking to our European colleagues, who, unfortunately, have been less generous than we have been? He will be aware that in that part of the world, at this time of the year, the help that we can give through our helicopters is much appreciated and needed.

Adam Ingram: My hon. Friend has seen this activity at first hand. I met the Chinook crews when they returned, and I was amazed at the amount of effort that they had put in. He is right about the capacity of our people, which is better than that of not just the Americans but everyone, to lift heavy quantities and to do more sorties than anyone else. As I understand it, the Americans cottoned on to what we are doing and have introduced the same lift techniques, and other allies are examining what we are doing, including the UN efforts. We have helped considerably in that specific area.
	I also saw off 59 Commando Royal Engineers and 42 Commando Royal Marines, who have gone to provide light engineering support. We have seen some of the playback of what they are doing. All the teams that we have sent out there are doing truly amazing work, all hours of the day, delivering essential humanitarian aid and support. Others should study what we are doing to see what more can be done. This is a critical area, and lives can be saved on the back of that effort. That is what our people are doing, and I will pass on my hon. Friend's warm words, which, I know, are echoed across this country.

James Arbuthnot: Does the Minister agree that the activities of those Chinook teams from the UK is a source of pride not only to Britain, but to RAF Odiham in my constituency. I know that the Minister visited RAF Odiham on Monday. Does he agree, however, that there is serious worry about the availability of heavy-lift helicopters once we deploy to Afghanistan next year? Is he convinced that we have enough heavy-lift helicopters, and support helicopters in general, to do the very necessary work that they do?

Adam Ingram: There is an issue to be dealt with. We are looking at the servicing of the whole support helicopter fleet, but particularly the Chinooks, and considering new cycle times for maintenance. If that proves feasible in safety terms, more helicopters may be available at any given time, and pressures may be eased.
	We should view the position across the board. We should not simply say "Let us purchase more"; we should ask whether there is a better way of making certain platforms available. Our action is part of our overall logistic support effort. It does not apply just to support helicopters, fast jets and so on. The Defence Committee, which the right hon. Gentleman chairs, is examining the whole issue, and I await the outcome of its report.

Gerald Howarth: I am sure that the whole House is very proud of the part played by the Royal Air Force in dealing with the terrible disaster in Pakistan. It is even more notable that we have been able to make that contribution despite the enormous pressure under which our helicopter fleets are operating.
	May I return to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot)? The fact is that we are short of heavy lift. We do not require it just for military purposes; we need it for precisely the kind of situation that we see in Kashmir, where the United Kingdom can make a serious contribution. Unless the Government are prepared to devote the necessary resources to defence, however, we shall not have that capability. In Iraq, as the Minister knows perfectly well, our helicopters are under enormous pressure. Can he not do more to ensure that the country has the heavy lift that it needs?

Adam Ingram: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman heard what I said. We are paying a great deal of attention to the problem, and there are ways in which we can ameliorate it. We can ensure that more platforms are available at any one time, which constitutes best use of our defence resources. I do not propose to enter into a debate, but I shall mention in passing that defence has received the largest sustained increase in funds for 20 years. It received £3.7 billion in the Budget—a real-terms increase of 1.4 per cent.—over the current spending review period from this Government, which contrasts with the cuts made by the last Tory Government.

Oil Depot Explosion (Hemel Hempstead)

John Prescott: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the explosion yesterday morning at the oil depot near Hemel Hempstead.
	I am sure that all Members will join me in thanking the emergency services, the voluntary services, local authority staff, Government officials and local people for the magnificent way in which they responded to the event—with speed, efficiency and dedication. I visited the site yesterday afternoon on my way down from Hull and spoke to the chief constable, Frank Whitely, and the chief fire officer, Roy Wilsher. I also met staff from the other agencies involved in the incident. I was impressed by how well organised they were, and how they were getting on with a very difficult job. I stressed that the Government would provide the support and assistance needed to tackle the fire, and I reported back to the Prime Minister last night.
	The scale of the situation is obvious from the powerful images that we have seen on television. The emergency services and other agencies are working together to tackle the fire. The facts are these. At about five past six yesterday morning, there was a huge explosion at the Buncefield fuel depot, on the outskirts of Hemel Hempstead. The site is about 1 km from junction 8 of the M1. The cause of the explosion is not yet known. It is thought to have been an accident, but we shall need a full investigation by the Health and Safety Executive in due course.
	The explosion and the fire have totally destroyed the north side of the oil storage terminal. Twenty oil tanks have been destroyed, but the remaining tanks on the southern part of the terminal have been protected from fire. There has been considerable structural damage to the buildings on the surrounding industrial estate, and some homes up to three miles away have been damaged. Casualties have fortunately been remarkably light, largely because the explosion happened early on a Sunday morning. Yesterday, 43 people were treated in hospital; only two of them were seriously injured and only one now remains in hospital, in a stable condition.
	As in all major incidents, the police established a "gold" command to bring together the emergency services and other key agencies. It is in Welwyn Garden City. In addition, the Government's eastern regional resilience team has provided a direct link with central Government, local authorities and voluntary agencies.
	The initial focus was to secure the area and stop the blaze from spreading. About 100 police officers and 100 firefighters were at the scene yesterday, and about 150 firefighters from 12 different fire and rescue services are tackling the blaze today. They are succeeding in putting out fires in 10 of the 20 fuel tanks. About 250,000 litres of foam were used this morning, and more supplies are on the way. The fire services believe that they have enough foam to smother the fire and prevent it from starting again.
	The scale of the incident was such that local resources were not sufficient, so the House will be grateful to fire brigades across the country that responded so quickly to calls for help. I also want to thank the people who are co-ordinating the response across the country so effectively.
	I am pleased to tell the House that the high-volume pumping equipment, which was used so effectively in the Carlisle floods in January, has again proved vital. Just one of those high-volume pumps does the work of 18 traditional fire engines and it can pump water over a distance of some three miles. The new equipment was provided by my Department under the New Dimension programme for precisely those kinds of major emergencies.
	The fire has had a number of wider consequences—in particular, health issues, the impact on fuel supplies and the provision of other public services. It has generated a large plume of smoke, which has spread widely. The plume is largely made up of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons. As the fire comes under control and as the heat reduces, there may be an increase in smoke locally. While I am advised that the plume is not toxic, the smoke is certainly unpleasant and may affect people with lung conditions.
	The Department of Health is working closely with the Environment Agency, the Health Protection Agency and the Met Office so that we can give up-to-date information about the plume and any implications for public health. Anyone concerned about the impact of the incident on their health should contact NHS Direct. Residents in the affected areas should stay in, close their windows and watch the news. As a precaution, a number of schools in the area have been closed today and employees of companies in the cordon have been advised not to go to work today.
	The movement of the plume was unpredictable, so officials have also been in contact with the European Union to keep other countries updated. Prior to the fire service's assault on the fire today, there were detailed discussions with the Environment Agency to ensure that the foam and water cannot reach the drinking water supply.
	The oil industry and the Department of Trade and Industry are working to overcome any impact that the incident may have on supplies of aviation fuel to Heathrow and Gatwick. A number of local services have also been affected and some precautionary measures have been taken. In the immediate aftermath of the explosion, some local people were evacuated from their homes to two rest centres provided by Dacorum district council, but only a few people took advantage of that.
	The whole House will, I am sure, wish to pay tribute to the way in which the local council, voluntary agencies and the whole community responded to the emergency. I understand that a few people cannot return to their homes yet, but most are expected to do so within the next 24 hours.
	Road transport was seriously disrupted yesterday as a result of the fire. The M1, M10 and local roads were all closed. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the M1 has now reopened, although entry and exit at junctions 7 and 8 will be restricted in order to allow easier access for the emergency services.
	As I said at the start of my statement, the response to the Hemel Hempstead explosion is a great tribute to all the emergency and other services involved and it is also a testament to the benefit of effective emergency planning. In the world in which we now live—with increased risks of both terrorism and accidents—multi-agency, cross-government contingency planning is vital. Day in, day out, this type of preparation takes place behind the scenes and away from the glare of the media, yet it is for events such as yesterday's that we plan.
	I can tell the House that, only three months ago, the emergency services in Hertfordshire conducted a successful exercise, covering just such an eventuality as occurred yesterday. The speed and efficiency of their response is testament to their foresight. Through the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, we put in place the legislative framework that set the foundation for that sort of multi-agency planning. The Government's investment in the New Dimension programme has also provided the equipment that worked so successfully in Carlisle and now in Hemel Hempstead.
	It is through the bravery, commitment and professionalism of our emergency services that we can respond so effectively to events such as this. Last night, I witnessed a group of firefighters who were about to enter the inferno. We admire the courage and abilities of those firefighters, who work hard and willingly for the safety of the community. The House will want to record its admiration for their courage and dedication in working on behalf of the community. Not only the firefighters but the police and the ambulance workers deserve our great praise and admiration. I am sure that the House will join me in recording our thanks and gratitude for the courage and hard work of our emergency services.

Caroline Spelman: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for giving me an advance copy of his statement. My colleagues and I certainly join him in paying tribute to the emergency services' skill and courage in tackling what is possibly the largest industrial fire since world war two, and in paying tribute to all those who have mobilised around the community to help. Our thoughts and prayers are with the workers and families affected by the blast, particularly in the run-up to Christmas.
	In November 2001, the Health and Safety Executive prosecuted the British Pipeline Agency Ltd. for safety breaches at the Hemel Hempstead depot on account of inadequate containment around flammable aviation fuel tanks. Given that we have not heard from the Deputy Prime Minister what he thinks went wrong, could he tell the House when the HSE last inspected the oil depot? Does this latest incident prove that proper safety procedures were still not in place? Will he place in the Library of the House a copy of the compliance reports produced by the HSE in response to those earlier breaches? Is there any connection between the previous prosecution for inadequate containment around the aviation fuel tanks and eyewitnesses reporting fumes at the depot before the explosion?
	Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that this incident raises concerns about possible lack of safety training at the depot? Can he state when—once it is safe to gain access to the site—he expects the HSE to publish its interim report? Do the HSE and the fire services ever expect to find out the true causes, given the intensity of the explosion and the heat? Does the Deputy Prime Minister's recognition of the need for a full investigation extend to a public inquiry, in order that the full implications of this incident for other depots can be considered? Does his undertaking to provide support and assistance mean that Hertfordshire's local authorities, including the police and the fire authority, will be eligible for emergency funding under the Bellwin scheme? Does he agree that the costs that will have to be faced—of temporary accommodation, repairs to highways and special overtime for emergency services' staff—clearly fall under eligible expenditure for Bellwin? Does he also agree that at a time of acute pressures on local authorities, including the threat of capping, it would be wrong to charge local taxpayers for this unexpected emergency, the implications of which go far beyond the locality?
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) has done an excellent job in articulating his constituents' concerns, and I hope that he may catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, not least because he has let the Deputy Prime Minister know of his concerns in advance. Given the worldwide reporting of this incident, does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that it has raised awareness—for good or ill—of the vulnerability of fuel depots? Will his Department now review security at oil depots throughout the country, and will that review include a risk assessment of any new house-building programmes near those sites? Does he agree that consideration should be given to reconstructing the Buncefield facility at a site further away from the residential community?
	I compliment the Deputy Prime Minister on his prompt visit to the site, but as I know from preparing this response to his statement, this incident cuts across the work of several Departments—including his own, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department of Health and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—and a plethora of other agencies, such as the Health Protection Agency, the Environment Agency and the Met Office. Can we assume from this statement that the Deputy Prime Minister will be in charge, and what measures are in place to ensure maximum cross-departmental co-operation?
	What are the longer-term environmental and health considerations of the pollution, which is being dispersed over a wide area? Will any guidance be produced by DEFRA on the possible implications for local livestock if the smoke cloud falls down to earth as contaminated rain? What is the risk of contamination to the water supply?
	The United Kingdom is close to not having enough gas supplies for the winter, largely because of lack of storage capacity. What assurances can the Deputy Prime Minister give us that this incident has not further compromised energy security? What reassurance can be given to local people that panic buying is unnecessary?
	The disaster has caused only limited human casualties, because—by the grace of God—it happened at 6 o'clock on a Sunday morning, but that miracle should not engender complacency in any agency. As so many departments and agencies are involved, I urge them all to face up to the reality that this could have been so much worse.

John Prescott: I thank the hon. Lady for her supportive remarks, which I think will be appreciated by all those who have been involved in this terrible incident. Of course there are many lessons to be learned, and many of the questions that she has asked today cannot be answered until later, but full inquiries will be made right across Government, in the bodies responsible for health and safety and for the environment, the Department of Trade and Industry and all other appropriate bodies.
	The Environment Agency has been very much involved from the beginning. Indeed, tackling the fire was delayed for a while until we knew the full environmental consequences of the foam and the water passing into the water supply—and, of course, because of the heat of the fire. We have to make a judgment when we intervene, and that was a difficult judgment for the fire authorities. As they have said, the incident is probably unique in size and scale; that has caused them great concern, and our hearts are with them in their efforts to deal with this difficult problem.
	It is proper to ask all those questions, and we will do all that we can to answer them. If the hon. Lady would like a meeting with me in a few days' time, when we have a little more information, I would be delighted to arrange one.
	I shall indeed take the co-ordinating role across Government, to ensure that Departments work together to find the answers to deal with the problem. The fire certainly has not been defeated yet; people are still bravely fighting it, and it will continue for a time yet.
	The hon. Lady asked about panic buying. The various authorities and the oil companies have made it clear that it is not necessary to get involved in panic buying, because the proportion of ordinary fuel used from this depot is much smaller than that used for aviation. There is a special problem with aviation fuel, which the DTI is looking into.
	I do not think that we are complacent. The point that I made was that the New Dimension programme was bringing all the agencies together and providing the proper equipment. Nearly £2 million has been invested over the past two years to assemble the equipment and get the agencies to work together. It was quite comforting to hear from the police, the fire authorities and the agencies how the multi-agency approach had worked this time, because they are properly exercised and had the equipment to deal with the fire. As I said, if we had not provided the special pumps that can pump water from three miles away—indeed, water is now having to be provided from as much as a mile away—about 18 fire engines would have been needed. We are all grateful to see that the proper equipment is there to deal with this difficult problem.
	As for the damages and the Bellwin scheme, to which the hon. Lady referred, she knows as well as I do that if the local authority spends more than £2 million, extra expenses under the Bellwin scheme can be considered. For the police authority, that figure is something like £319,000. As in all local authority budgets, a certain amount of money is made available for such contingencies. We shall consider all the circumstances.
	Stringent conditions are laid down about siting such plants near housing, but the plant in question originated about 40 years ago and has been there ever since. Any lessons that we have to learn from that will certainly be taken into account.
	The hon. Lady raised a number of very proper questions to which I cannot give adequate answers yet, because we must wait until the fire has been defeated for proper investigations to take place. As I have said, however, if she would like to come and talk to me about that in the next few days, I shall give her any further information that we have by then.

Sarah Teather: First, may I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for coming to the House to make his statement so promptly, and for giving me notice of what he intended to say. I echo his comments, and those of the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) from the Conservative Front Bench, in commending the police and fire services and all the other agencies for the extraordinary way in which they have responded to this unprecedented emergency. I have spoken with colleagues on Hertfordshire county council, and they have nothing but praise for the exemplary way in which the local services have handled the disaster.
	The Deputy Prime Minister is indeed correct to say that we have been lucky in terms of casualty figures and, obviously, a police investigation into the cause is ongoing. However, does the Deputy Prime Minister believe that any lessons can be learned at this stage in terms of future planning policy about the siting of such depots close to residential and commercial areas? Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that any early information gained about the cause of the accident will be passed on to other depots, four of which are much larger than the one in Hemel Hempstead, and that safety checks will be carried out at other depots as a matter of urgency?
	Will the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledge that Hertfordshire has had to deal with four major national incidents in the past 10 years, including the Hatfield rail crash, so will he be flexible about the arrangements for an application for extra funding under the Bellwin scheme? In terms of the environmental and health impacts of the incident, what assessment has been made of the consequences of burning large quantities of oil at a temperature different from that of a combustion engine? For example, has any assessment been made of the likely profile of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, produced as a result of incomplete combustion, and what would be the likely consequences of those in the food chain?
	In terms of the particular soot solution and the impact on people with respiratory illness, what discussions have taken place with the primary care trust to ensure that adequate provision will be made should seasonal infections and air pollution co-exist to lead to an increase in acute episodes of illness? I also understand that the hospital episodes statistics unit has been badly damaged by the incident. What implications will that have?
	The Deputy Prime Minister has confirmed the statements from the police yesterday that there is no need to panic buy. What actions have the Government taken to ensure that public fears are allayed and that it does not become a reality?

John Prescott: I thank the hon. Lady for her words of support, which will also be much appreciated by those dealing with the fire.
	On the issue of planning, we have tough rules about the siting of such plants, which is also covered by the common European rules. They are very different from the situation 40 years ago when the site was originally planned. Any lessons to be learned will not wait until the final result of our inquiries. If information of immediate use, interest or value arises with regard to improving safety, it will be made available so that changes can be made to other sites.
	The Bellwin scheme judges individual incidents, not a collective number of incidents. For example, it provided resources for dealing with the Carlisle flooding, based on the criteria that I mentioned earlier.
	The questions of chemical reaction and combustion are matters for the Health and Safety Executive and I shall draw them to its attention. The health authorities in the area acted quickly to provide the proper advice and make hospital services available. Thank goodness, they were not greatly used, but they were in place—they were stood down quickly after very few people turned up. As the hon. Lady said, we are grateful that the incident happened early on a Sunday morning. There would have been many people in attendance at the nearby industrial buildings on a Monday morning, and we have all seen the pictures of them. If it had happened at a different time, we could have been dealing with a very different situation.
	I hope that the problem of panic buying will be helped by the statement in the House and by the statements made by the chief constable and the fire officers. They are to be congratulated on giving as much information as quickly as they could and on making it clear that panic buying was not necessary. All the signs are that people have taken that advice, but we will continue to make it clear that there is no need for any panic buying.

Andrew Miller: My right hon. Friend will be aware that my constituency is dominated by the Stanlow oil refinery and it will come as no surprise that constituents have expressed concern about whether such incidents could occur locally. May I join my right hon. Friend in praising the fantastic work done by the emergency services over the past 24 hours? It reflects the sort of co-ordinated action that I have seen in previous incidents in the petro-chemical industry. It is important that we learn lessons from this across the whole industry. I agree with my right hon. Friend that it is too early to speculate about what went wrong and whether the location should be moved, but will he assure me that there will be a cross-industry study to determine whether changes are needed and that we ensure that best practice across the sector applies to the distribution terminals? By their nature, they are places where the risk is real, due to the transfer to vehicles. Can we be assured that every possible lesson is learned and put into place?

John Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for his support for the emergency services, which will be well received by them. I am well aware of the Stanlow refinery as I went to school nearby in Ellesmere Port. I know of the concerns of people who live near such facilities, and of the requirement to ensure their safety. The industry has already made it clear that whatever lessons are to be learned will be passed on. The industry will conduct its own investigation, but the advice of its experts to the firefighting authorities has been valuable and was much appreciated by our firefighters.
	We shall certainly ensure that the lessons that are learned become best practice. There is much consultation and negotiation between the Government and various bodies. I recall hearing the explosion at Flixborough on Humberside in the 1970s. Many lessons were learned from that and implemented in the industry with its active co-operation, and I have no reason to doubt that that would not be the same in this case.

Michael Penning: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for coming to the Chamber so quickly to make a statement. On behalf of my constituents in Hemel Hempstead, I also thank him for visiting us yesterday at a very difficult time for us. I apologise that I was not available in the area that he visited; I was actually with constituents on the other side of the fire.
	I praise the professionalism of what is without the shadow of a doubt the best fire service in the world, which has been fighting the fire in Hemel Hempstead for about 30 hours. As a former fireman, I dreaded going to such fires and as the crews were going to the fire I know they were dreading what they might see when they arrived, especially as they knew that people were working at the site. The luckiest men alive are the maintenance workers who walked away with only cuts and bruises even though they were only a few feet away from the initial explosion. I have met those maintenance workers, and the shock has set in as to how lucky they are.
	This is a national disaster and the costs of fighting the fire cannot be borne by the taxpayers and the fire authority in Hertfordshire. It is physically impossible. I welcome the extra appliances that were sent from all over the country and, in particular, the other fire authorities that have been working so closely with my crews throughout last night and today. The situation looks promising, as the fire is out in a lot of the tanks, but the costs will be unbearable for the local community. Not only are there firefighting costs but, as the House will be aware, the industrial estate, which is closed to cameras today, is devastated by the blast damage, as are the local residents, and the next part of my question relates to the long-term effects on them.
	When the depot was built, there was hardly any residential property around it, but over the last 40 years it has been surrounded by residential accommodation. Forty years ago, the site was probably assumed to be safe; clearly, it is not today. May we have an urgent inquiry into the siting of such depots? Such an inquiry should cover not only the facility itself but the emergency facilities around it. I am sure that the Deputy Prime Minister was informed yesterday that the acute accident and emergency centre where the injured persons were taken is due to close next April, under Government proposals. If the depot remains in the area, my constituents will be worried about the long-term effects of that closure for their community.
	This is not about party politics; it is about what is right and wrong for our constituents. I am so proud of my constituency and the way that people pulled together as a community yesterday. I thank them for all the work they did and I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for going there yesterday.

John Prescott: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those remarks. I was well aware that he was actively looking after his constituents' interests during my visit. I hope that he will accept that my intention was not to commit the chief constable or the chief fire officer simply to attend me, but to ask whether they wanted any assistance, so I was in and out quickly. I hope that he understands that that was the reason why I did not contact him when he was seeing to his constituents' needs.
	As a former fireman, he will appreciate more than anyone the difficulties facing those firemen at present. I have referred to them waiting to go into the inferno, and we all admire the extraordinary courage of firefighters in those circumstances. Of course, the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), is also a former fireman—so I have got them to the front of me and to the back of me. I felt that during the last dispute, but I will not go into that situation. Nevertheless, I have never doubted the courage of those people who, as workers, are willing to face danger in such a way. No other person is faced with that, and we are grateful to them for doing so on behalf of the community.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to this as a national disaster. Again, the resources that we make available under the Bellwin scheme for such circumstances will be judged against the incident. Clearly, terrible and extensive damage was done to the industrial estate, and the insurers have already told those companies, as well as householders, that they are prepared to consider all those claimants. We will see what we can do in that regard.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the residential properties near to the site. Obviously, planning permission was given for them, but I will certainly look into that and see whether any lesson can be learned.
	In regard to the emergency services at the hospital, that was certainly not expressed as a concern, but I readily take on board what the hon. Gentleman said. However, I give him the same offer as I gave to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman): if he desires to see me in a few days when the position is a little clearer, we can discuss exactly his fears and whether we can do any more to assist his constituents.

Adrian Bailey: I thank my right hon. Friend for the statement, and I associate myself with the remarks that he has made about the professionalism of the emergency services involved. Does he agree that this incident is almost unique in its significance and that the range of publicservices and organisations involved clearly demonstrates the importance of the recent legislation on civil contingencies and the changes in emergency planning? Will he undertake to assess the outcomes of the incident against the legislation and the changes that have taken place, with a view to finding out whether any further strengthening is needed because of the incident?

John Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks about the emergency services. They expressed to me very strongly their gratitude for the new organisation, which brings together the various public agencies. They recently carried out an exercise in that respect. Indeed, one of the points made to me by the chief constable was that people from outside the area were already involved. People trained to do some of this work were sent in from other regions, although none was called in at that time. That also brings home to us the fact that the resources needed in this kind of incident are greater than those available, for example, to county organisations. Hence the importance of organising contingency funds and equipment on a regional basis, as in the legislation to which my hon. Friend referred. New equipment, new organisation and new ways to approach exercises to prepare for such events certainly played their part. We will take on board the lessons that we must learn and then discuss with the authorities how we may implement them.

Peter Lilley: As my constituency borders the Buncefield storage depot, may I endorse, and associate my constituents and myself with, the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) and the Deputy Prime Minister, in which they expressed gratitude and praise for the emergency services for their exemplary courage, dedication and commitment over the past 30 hours? I visited the burning oil fields in Kuwait and never expected to see an equally terrifying inferno so close to a built-up area on the doorstep of my constituency.
	May I raise two points that my constituents have put to me that have not been mentioned so far? There is a fear that the partly burned fuel might generate carcinogenic chemicals, so will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that that is not the case? Constituents whose homes have been damaged need to know as soon as possible whether they will be able to claim for those damages from the owners of the depot, or their insurance policies. I end by expressing my gratitude to the Deputy Prime Minister for the action that he has taken in response to these events.

John Prescott: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks and for indicating that our emergency forces acted with exemplary courage. They certainly played their part with tremendous dedication in what he rightly called an inferno. The chief fire officer told me yesterday that he had never seen anything on such a scale. We are dealing with a situation on a scale that is quite unique in Europe. Indeed, we are in uncharted waters with the problems that come from the chemicals produced by burning oil and petrol, and it is thus difficult for me to give proper answers to such questions. I am advised that the chemicals are not toxic, but let us wait and see. Discussions are going on at the moment and investigations are under way. When we have further information, we will report to the House as soon as possible.
	The insurance companies have made it clear that any claims for damage to homes will be properly entertained. However, if we find that there are any difficulties, which is sometimes the case when such terrible and tragic incidents occur, the Government can play a part in encouraging parties to come together so that people are properly compensated. The right hon. Gentleman can be sure that we will do all that we can to ensure that that happens.

Gordon Prentice: What are the implications for grazing animals in the areas in which the plume descends? Can I take it that milk production in those areas will cease?

John Prescott: My hon. Friend makes an important point, but I cannot give him an effective answer about whether milk production will cease. We will have to make proper assessments and judgments on what the damage due to the fall-out from the plume might be. Of course, people are worried that as we successfully begin to defeat the fire and put it out, the thermal draughts that send the plume so high will be removed and thus the effects of the plume will come much closer to home. We are carefully monitoring the situation to find out what is happening and we are making assessments. However, I cannot say what action will be taken until we properly know what the threat is.

Andrew Selous: I pass on my condolences and those of my constituents to the people of Hemel Hempstead, which is a constituency that borders my own. I know that they will be as pleased as I am that support from Bedfordshire's fire and rescue service, police services and local authorities was so readily forthcoming. However, my constituents have expressed concern about the delay in putting out the fire, at the request of the Environment Agency, although I am sure that we all understand the reasons for that because we would not want our water supplies to be contaminated. Will the Deputy Prime Minister examine that matter so that when such fires happen in the future, they can be put out as quickly as possible to minimise the damage to the environment?

John Prescott: The hon. Gentleman raises a fair point. I think that more than 14 fire authorities sent fire vehicles and firefighters to assist. Indeed, I think that they do so automatically under the procedures that we have set up. When there is such an incident, there is no question about timing or assistance because people all act together, even if they are not called upon to appear at the site.
	On the environmental costs, it is true that the Environment Agency was concerned—as, indeed, were the fire authorities—about the effect on the national water supply of applying foam and water on such a scale. It was not satisfied that there would not have been consequential damage, so there was a little delay. However, the delay certainly did not occur only because of the environmental advice. Given the heat, the chief fire officer had to make difficult decisions about when to apply foam and the mix of the water and the foam, which is concentrated. The combination of those two matters meant that the fire services did not immediately go into the fire. The other factor that would have delayed entry is that some tanks that had not exploded then exploded later. I heard one go up when I was there. It was one of the last two. It is difficult for firemen to deal with a fire when they do not know whether the tank that they are trying to keep cool will explode. All those factors may have added to the delay, but that delay was necessary for safety and for proper treatment in response to the situation.

Cheryl Gillan: I join my hon. Friends and the Deputy Prime Minister in their praise for the emergency services and for the work that they are doing in the neighbouring constituency to mine, Hemel Hempstead. I acknowledge my constituency water company, Three Valleys Water, which has been working with the Environment Agency and the emergency services to ensure that every effort is made to assist the fire service in limiting damage to the environment. However, I am very concerned about the longer-term impact on the environment, and especially the potential pollution of ground water supplies.
	The right hon. Gentleman will know that Three Valleys Water loses about one water source a year due to pollution, and I would like his assurance that a comprehensive clean-up operation will continue to be a high priority for the Government in the longer term.

John Prescott: I can assure the hon. Lady that there is concern about undertaking a comprehensive review and a proper check of what is occurring. I am assured by the Environment Agency that it does not think that there will be an effect on the water supply. It undertook rigorous testing on that basis.
	The hon. Lady may know that one of the requirements of many of these plants is to build a trench around them so that any spillages go into the trench areas. Those spillages can then be pumped out and put into reservoirs. The Environment Agency had to ensure that that provision was secure. We will continue to monitor the situation and I will be ready to pass on to the House any information that we receive.

David Gauke: May I also pay tribute to the emergency services, whose courage and professionalism have impressed us all? I pay tribute in particular to the Bovingdon fire crew from my constituency, which was one of the first crews on the scene on Sunday morning. Unfortunately, Bovingdon fire station is due to close next year because of cuts in fire services as a result of additional responsibilities that have been placed on the service in Hertfordshire, but without any additional funding. Will the Deputy Prime Minister assure us that future reorganisations of the fire service will not mean cuts to front-line services, which unfortunately Hertfordshire faces over the next few months?

John Prescott: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware, particularly given the tone of his remarks, that such decisions are made by the local fire authority, which had to find a balance. Account is now taken of the regional implications of changes, and we are pleased that that brought in the necessary fire pumps. There are adjustments and changes, but no area will suffer from a lack of proper safety cover. That is the responsibility of the local authority area, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is well aware of that.

James Clappison: May I join with the Deputy Prime Minister and with hon. Friends in paying tribute to the emergency services, including, of course, the firefighters of the Hertfordshire fire service, which includes firefighters in Radlett in my constituency, who have been playing a full supporting role since early yesterday? They have demonstrated once again the vital role that they play.
	I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for the role that he has played so far. However, in the aftermath, I urge him, together with my colleagues, to do what he can to ensure that the burden of this event does not fall disproportionately upon Hertfordshire.

John Prescott: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.

Gregory Campbell: I join in paying tribute to the fire services and the other emergency services that are involved in the incident. Once the issues in this immediate incident have been resolved, I hope satisfactorily, will any of the lessons that will undoubtedly be learned from the incident be shared throughout the United Kingdom to prevent any recurring incident?

John Prescott: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I can assure him that, as in all these incidents, there are lessons to be learned, and they will be shared throughout the United Kingdom.

James Arbuthnot: Last week, we heard about the crash of a C-130J aircraft in Afghanistan. One factor that contributed to the crash was the lack of a fuel tank inerting system. Does the Deputy Prime Minister know whether there was an inerting system in the fuel tanks at the depot, and is it something that will be included in the investigation to see whether the introduction of such systems would valuable?

John Prescott: To be honest, I do not know. I will try to find a proper answer for the right hon. Gentleman, and write to him.

Peter Bone: I wish to be associated with the Deputy Prime Minister's remarks about the emergency services. In the past few years, the number of whole-time professional firefighters in the United Kingdom has fallen. As a result of the incident and the review, will the Deputy Prime Minister undertake to look at that and see whether we should reverse that trend by starting to increase the number of whole-time firefighters in the UK?

John Prescott: The House will know of the recent Bain report on manpower in the fire services and the demands that we make of them. Considerable changes are under way, but a combination of full-time and part-time firefighters is used, depending on the circumstances. I am quite satisfied at this stage that we have sufficient manpower to be able to deal with all the risks and assessments, and to meet the changes that are necessary.

Anne McIntosh: May I join the Deputy Prime Minister in paying great tribute to all the emergency services, whose members put themselves in harm's way when the rest of us cannot escape quickly enough? He will be aware of the emergency planning college at Hawkhills in Easingwold in the Vale of York, so will he ensure that the work that it does to prepare for such emergencies is well known? Will he ensure that any future scenarios for which it plans training sessions will encompass the incident and take on board any lessons from the inquiry?

John Prescott: The hon. Lady is well aware of the work of the emergency services, given the flooding in her constituency. We both have great admiration for them—whatever part of the country they are in, they always do an excellent job. I can assure her that all the lessons to be learned will be discussed in the various forums available.

Former Far East Prisoners of War and Civilian Internees (Ex Gratia Scheme)

Don Touhig: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Government's ex gratia payment scheme for former far east prisoners of war and civilian internees.
	On 1 December, I gave evidence to the Select Committee on Public Administration on the operation of the scheme. It was introduced on 7 November 2000 and the first payments were made in February 2001. The birth-link criterion was clarified internally in March 2001, and clarified publicly on 11 July 2001—each successful claimant would receive £10,000. I explained to the Committee that I had commissioned a review into whether consistent eligibility criteria had been used throughout for civilian internees, and I undertook to make a statement to the House before the recess.
	The review now under way requires the Veterans Agency to look at a large number of claim files, and the House will understand that it is not yet complete. As I said to the Committee, there was a desire on all sides to introduce the scheme as quickly as possible because of the age of some of the former POWs and civilian detainees. It is clear that we did too much in haste when introducing the scheme and it is important that we now take sufficient time to get it right. None the less, many individuals who may be affected are elderly and I recognise the importance of resolving the issue as quickly as possible.
	The scheme at present offers compensation to British internees born in the UK, or internees who had a parent or grandparent who was born here—the so-called birth-link criterion. The work under way confirms that claims decided before March 2001 were not decided on the basis of the birth-link criterion or on eligibility rules that were fully consistent with it. Of those early claims so far examined for which payments were made, there is clear evidence that the majority were decided by reference to an earlier scheme in the 1950s, which used liquidated Japanese assets to compensate far east prisoners of war and civilian internees. Those eligibility rules for the scheme were based on the question of whether the individual was a British national, was normally resident in the UK before internment, and had resumed residence after the war. Evidence so far examined strongly suggests that the birth-link criterion was introduced in part because it was found that eligibility based on the earlier Japanese asset scheme excluded many claimants with a close link to the United Kingdom.
	The introduction of the birth-link criterion in March 2001 allowed large numbers of additional civilian internees to be paid. The overall effect was to widen the number of people who met the qualifying criteria. However, this change of criteria had two other specific effects. First, we have identified some 240 claims that were paid in the first period which, on the evidence available when the claim was decided, could not be identified as meeting the birth-link criterion. Though these claims were not decided on the birth-link criterion, it is probable that a number of them would have satisfied it, had we sought further evidence on whether any of the claimants' grandparents were born in the UK. I emphasise that we do not intend to ask for any repayment in these cases.
	Secondly, there may be some claimants who would have qualified before the birth-link criterion was introduced because they had benefited under the Japanese asset scheme, but who were rejected because they applied after March 2001 when they were assessed against the birth-link criterion. We do not know the numbers of this latter group, but we think they are small.
	We still have some way to go in examining claim files and I cannot at this stage say that there are no other issues concerning the application of eligibility criteria. What I can say is that we are determined to undertake a thorough review to ensure that we expose any difficulties that there may have been with the eligibility rules. It is also too early to say what effect our findings might have on the scheme's eligibility criteria. I can, however, again confirm that there is no question of seeking to recover payments already made to claimants who would not have met the birth-link criterion. I can also assure the House that no claimant will be disadvantaged if he or she would have qualified under the criteria based on the Japanese asset scheme but failed because the claim was considered under the birth-link criterion.
	There is a separate question about how the use of inconsistent criteria before and after March 2001 was not exposed earlier, in spite of the fact that there have been a number of court cases, ministerial statements and an inquiry by the parliamentary ombudsman. I have decided that this should be the subject of a separate investigation, and I have asked the permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence to identify a retired senior official or comparable person from outside the Departments involved who could appropriately lead the investigation. The work will be put in hand as a matter of priority and I will report its findings to the House when it is complete.
	The House will be aware that there have been two claims for judicial review of the scheme which have focused on the eligibility criteria applied to former civilian internees. It is too early to say what effects the review that we have been undertaking may have on these, but I can assure the House that we will disclose to claimants in those cases and to the courts the results of our review when these are known. I will also share this information with the parliamentary ombudsman.
	In addition, Members on both sides will want me to tell them that a number of claimants for whom strong support has been expressed in the House and more widely will become eligible for payment. I know that the case of Professor Hayward is a particular concern for a number of hon. Members who raised it with me. I understand their wish to see the position resolved for those individuals, but I have to make it clear that, until our review is complete, I cannot give any assurances about how the criteria might need to be changed or what the effect might be on individual cases. At this stage I can say only that we fully appreciate the difficulties that we have brought on these individuals as a result of uncertainties about the scheme criteria, and that we will be seeking to resolve them as quickly as we possibly can.
	I have said a number of times that we recognise that mistakes were made as a result of the speed of the introduction of the scheme. All those involved wished to see the payments made as quickly as possible, given the age of many of the former civilian internees and prisoners of war. It is now clear that the scheme's eligibility criteria were not applied consistently through the scheme's life and that we did not identify that that was the case over an extended period. That resulted in inaccurate statements, including by Ministers to Parliament and to the parliamentary ombudsman, for which I apologise unreservedly, Mr. Speaker. I also express my apologies and deep regret to those individual claimants who have been adversely affected.
	We will complete our review of the application of eligibility rules as quickly as possible, but with the overriding requirement that we must ensure that we have bottomed out any problems that there may have been with those rules. At that point, we will also consider what changes are required to our current criteria to ensure that no claimant was disadvantaged if they would have qualified under the criteria based on the Japanese asset scheme, but failed in their claim because it was considered under the birth-link criterion. Our objective will be to remedy any shortcomings in the decisions on claims as quickly as possible, and I hope that we will complete that work by early February, at which point I will make a further statement to the House.

Julian Lewis: I fear that this statement will come as a severe disappointment to members of the Association of British Civilian Internees Far East Region. Today's statement was anticipated by the Minister's testimony to the Public Administration Committee on 1 December, and it was hoped that something substantive would be announced. Instead, we have had a typically gracious apology, which is only the latest in a line of apologies—there was an apology in a written ministerial statement on 13 July, and there was another apology, and the offer of £500 compensation for the mistakes made, in a further written ministerial statement on 11 October.
	In reality, the veterans and civilian internees are not looking for more apologies; they are looking for the Government to honour the pledge that they gave on 7 November 2000. Does the Minister recall what Lord Moonie, as he now is, said when he held his post? He said:
	"I am very pleased to be able to inform the House that, as a result of the review, the Government have decided to make a single ex gratia payment of £10,000 to each of the surviving members of the British groups who were held prisoner by the Japanese during the Second World War, in recognition of the unique circumstances of their captivity."—[Official Report, 7 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 159.]
	Does the Minister recognise that there has been a humiliating confrontation with the courts and a humiliating confrontation with the ombudsman? An adjustment was made to the criteria that narrowed them to exclude some people who had been in the camps, but that also widened them to include some people who had not been in the camps. Does the Minister accept that some people who were never in a Japanese camp, such as those who were evacuated in 1942 or those who sheltered in Red Cross and Church homes, have been paid, which has inflated the number of claims and is delaying the process even further?
	In discussing the need to act with haste, does the Minister accept that the announcement on 7 November 2000 was the culmination of cross-party efforts in support of the campaign for compensation to be paid, which was waged by veterans and civilian detainees for many a long year? What is it about the issue that makes it such a poisoned chalice for Ministers who are compassionate and considerate in all their other actions? Why is it such a struggle to get the compensation for people who were in the camps?
	Does the Minister accept that what has happened has been a dishonouring of the people who, in this 60th anniversary year of the ending of the war, most deserve our consideration and respect? Has he ever read, as I did as a youngster, the tales of what happened to those people? Many of us read the accounts in "The Naked Island" by Russell Braddon and "The Knights of the Bushido" by Lord Russell of Liverpool when we were, frankly, far too young to read of such horrors.
	Does the Minister accept that this process, this ordeal, this revisiting time and again of issues that should be settled on an ex gratia payment, has gone on far too long, and will he now use his best efforts to bring it to an end once and for all?

Don Touhig: I would have liked nothing better than to come here today and say that the whole matter is resolved and that we have found a solution that everybody will cheer to the rafters, but that is not the position. We have to get it right. We have not succeeded in getting it right in the past. That was not because of any bad intention. When the scheme was announced, Members on both sides of the House welcomed it as a positive and proper recognition of the suffering that these people had gone through.
	I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the stories that he read. I did not read them, but I have friends who went through that time and have told me, difficult as it was for them, about the horrors that they endured.
	I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a great deal of respect, would be doing anything different in my position. We have to ensure that we get it right this time. In the past, too many people were led to believe that they qualify under the scheme although they do not. The scheme was intended for those British civilian internees who had a close link to the United Kingdom at the time and for whom the UK might therefore be regarded as being responsible. At the time of world war two, all those born in the British empire were British nationals. Most far east prisoners of war and civilian internees who did not have a close link to the UK are now citizens of countries that have been given their independence. It is right that those countries, which have also benefited from the defeat of Japan, should have responsibility for the enduring problems that people have had to suffer as a result of being interned in the war.
	I have issued an apology and we have offered a £500 payment to those people who thought that they qualified under the scheme but do not. To give the hon. Gentleman and the House the facts, three quarters of the letters that I have signed—I am signing personal letters—are to people who do not live and have never lived in the United Kingdom. I fully understand that that in no way diminishes the suffering that they went through at the time. Nevertheless, it is my clear understanding that, when we agreed the scheme, it was intended to benefit those who had the closest possible links with the United Kingdom.
	I cannot say at this stage whether there will be a need to review the scheme, but we will do so if necessary. I cannot say, in answer to the questions that I am sure will come both sides of the House, whether we can widen the criteria. We have to get it right first. If there is a need for change, we will make it. We are not shutting our eyes to that. We recognise that we have a duty and a responsibility to our people and we will certainly respond in the best possible way.

Bob Russell: I thank the Minister for advance notice of his statement and for his gracious apology. I commend the Government for introducing the scheme five years ago, but does he accept that the wait that many people have had since then is longer than the period for which they were prisoners of war in the captivity of the imperial Japanese army?
	Is the Minister aware of any occasion on which the imperial Japanese army inquired into the status of those whom they were incarcerating? Can he confirm that the imperial Japanese army regarded those who served under the British flag or who looked to the British flag for protection as being British? Where has it all gone wrong in the past five years? Does he agree that the simple test is that, if the Japanese believed that those people were British, and if they felt that they were British at the time and feel that they are British now, why cannot they have the compensation?

Don Touhig: I appreciate that it has taken a long time to bring the scheme to fruition, but that does not detract from the fact that 25,000 claimants out of 29,000 applicants have already been paid, and have received £10,000 each. That is right and proper. There has been progress.
	I understand the problem of delay. Colleagues may know that I have been involved in another matter that was delayed—miners' compensation. The problem went on for much longer than that with the scheme that we are considering. We all know about the pain and suffering of those who had to endure difficult working conditions and difficult conditions through being prisoners of war. In all the cases with which I have dealt, whether miners' compensation cases or applications for the scheme that we are discussing, the people involved do not talk about the money but about recognition of the suffering that they endured at a difficult time. We are trying to tackle that.
	I take the hon. Gentleman's point about those who were interned by the Japanese because they were considered British or served the British interest. That is generally accepted. However, I hope that he acknowledges that I cannot act on my own. I need the support and help of hon. Members of all parties if we are to get the matter right. I do not want another Minister to come back here in a year or so and say, "Sorry we got it wrong again", or that there is some problem with the scheme because we did it too quickly. All parties desired the introduction of the payment. We did that with the best intentions and as speedily as we could. It is already clear from the review that the criteria were not properly defined and refined and that people were led to believe that they would be compensated. Many thousands of members of the Indian army applied under the scheme because they believed at that time that they were British citizens and they served the British empire.
	There is a host of questions to ask if the scheme is to be extended. I acknowledge that hopes will be raised and I do not want to raise them unduly. Let us complete the review. If there is a need to change the criteria, we will examine that.

Andrew MacKinlay: The only disappointment in my hon. Friend's statement is that Ministers often do not apologise, yet he has come to the House and apologised when he should not have done so. He should stick his chest out and be proud that the Government introduced the scheme. Even if it is not absolutely correct, it came 60 years late and was not introduced by previous Labour or Tory Governments. He should not apologise but be proud of the scheme of which he has stewardship. I am proud, as a Labour Member, of voting for it.
	I want to ask about those people who live in what is now the Irish Republic. Many would have been born before 1922, while others might not have been but served in the British Army—not the Canadian, Australian or Indian but the United Kingdom armed forces—and every single one was a volunteer. My hon. Friend's predecessor overlooked that but rectified the matter for the heroes return scheme. Will my hon. Friend give an undertaking to discuss with the United Kingdom ambassador in Dublin how we can reach those in the Irish Republic who are eligible?

Don Touhig: I cannot say that I will discuss the matter with the ambassador, although I see him from time to time. However, let us complete the review into how we did not apply consistent criteria throughout. When that is done, I hope that we will be in a position to ascertain whether there is ground to change the scheme. At that time, I shall ensure that Hansard is at hand and that the question that my hon. Friend raised—I am sure that I will get questions and letters from him in the meantime—is part of our consideration.

Roger Gale: The House bears a burden of shame for the fact that successive Governments for so long short-changed people who should have been compensated. That is not a party political statement because it was true under successive Governments. I am grateful to the Minister for coming to the House, offering an apology and offering to try to resolve the problems once and for all.
	The Minister said that the number was diminishing. Any settlement will be too late for my constituent, Maurice Ezekiel, who died in Israel earlier this year. He has many friends who also live in Israel who feel strongly that they were British enough to hold a British passport, British enough to serve their country overseas and British enough to be detained, interned and tortured by the Japanese and are bitter that they—and now Maurice Ezekiel's widow—were not British enough to be compensated. I know that the Minister wants to resolve the problem honourably and amicably and I hope that he will take to those who are considering the matter that message from somebody for whom compensation is too late.

Don Touhig: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not alone in knowing examples of people who are no longer here to receive the recognition that they believed they deserved, and that the country believes that they deserved, whichever way the scheme is finally resolved. I will certainly take on board his point. This is a difficult and emotive issue. It is a cross-party matter, although I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) about the Government's decision to take this action, and I am proud that we have done so.
	We made it clear from the beginning that, as a country, we believe that there is a responsibility on us all to respond to the suffering that people went through at that difficult time. We have sought to introduce criteria that we believe underpin the closeness of their links to the United Kingdom. That is under challenge as a result of court cases, but we hope that the matter will be resolved early in the new year. If there are grounds to review the scheme, we will review the scheme. We are not closing our eyes or shutting the door to the idea of reviewing it, but I do not want to raise any false hopes that I will not come back and tell the House that there are no grounds for a review. If there are no such grounds, I shall come to the House and tell hon. Members that, but I ask for time and patience to get this right.

Ben Chapman: Does my hon. Friend accept that the people who were interned in such difficult circumstances were distressed when the rules were changed and that the £500 that was offered as a solution to that distress was itself a cause of further distress? When he considers the possibility of a review, will he seek not to over-involve himself in the minutiae of the differences between one scheme and another? I hope that he will try to arrive at a generous and equitable scheme that will provide people such as my constituent, Peter Hall, with a sense that the debt of honour that they feel has been owed to them for a long time is at last going to be satisfied.

Don Touhig: We received a critical report from the ombudsman into the way in which we had operated the scheme. The ombudsman said that the Government should offer an apology to the people who believed that they would be compensated under the scheme but were not, and that we should make that a tangible apology. I have issued written and verbal apologies, and we are introducing a scheme whereby those who did not qualify for compensation will receive the sum of £500. We believe that that was an appropriate amount in the circumstances that prevailed. I want that payment to continue, because, as I said in my statement, it might bring closure for some people, although I have no doubt that it will not do so for others. These people are getting older and it is important that they see some recognition at the earliest opportunity, so I intend to continue with the apologies and with the payments of £500, because I think that that is appropriate. When we have completed the review into how we got into the situation whereby we used different criteria throughout the scheme, we can decide whether there are grounds to change it. At that stage, I will review the whole matter of further compensation.

Henry Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that many thousands of Royal Norfolks were captured in Singapore when the garrison there capitulated? Many were imprisoned in the most appalling circumstances, and many worked and died on the River Kwai railway crossing. There is a large Far East Prisoners of War—FEPOW—group in Norfolk, and its members feel very strongly about these issues. Obviously, the scheme was a start, but does the Minister agree that, until the Japanese Government start to contribute to the financial arrangements, there will never be enough money available? Why should not the Japanese Government honour their moral obligations? What discussions have Ministers had with them?

Don Touhig: The House and the hon. Gentleman will be aware that such prisoners of war have generally been covered by the compensation of this scheme, and their cases are not, in the main, in dispute. There is an issue in relation to civilian internees, however, which we have yet to resolve. On the decision of the Japanese not to contribute, the issue has been exhausted over a number of years by all Governments who have sought to obtain compensation from the Japanese. In the 1950s, the asset scheme was introduced, under which, as a result of the defeat of Japan, we acquired a number of its assets, which we disposed of to fund a small scheme of compensation. In truth, I do not believe that the Japanese will be persuaded to do anything more at this time. As things stand, we believe that it is our responsibility as a Government to deal with this matter and that is why we introduced the scheme in the first place.

Kelvin Hopkins: I sympathise with my hon. Friend and thank him for his statement. I do not doubt his good faith in this matter, but he has inherited a situation not of his making that is a mess and that is unacceptable to many hon. Members and particularly to members of the Public Administration Committee, to which I belong, and which questioned him a short time ago. There is a defined group of people who feel outraged that they were to be described as somehow second-class British citizens and were not to be treated the same as those who suffered exactly as they did who were British citizens at the time. When I saw his statement listed today, my hopes rose that we would get a final resolution of the problem. Obviously, that has not happened. I urge him to come forward with the positive answer that we want, as urged strongly at the Public Administration Committee meeting only a few days ago.
	Over Christmas, my constituent, Dr. Mark Erooga, will be waiting for the Minister's statement. He was a doctor in a military hospital in Hong Kong before the war, treating British servicemen and was interned. He was then let out and came to Britain, where he spent the whole of his working life in the national health service. He is now retired and lives in my constituency, and he resents not so much the £10,000 but that, in some way, his citizenship is being said to be not quite as sound as others'. That is the point that my hon. Friend should address. I hope that he will come forward with the positive answer that we want in the new year.

Don Touhig: I hope that my hon. Friend and Members on both sides of the House will accept that there has been no suggestion by the Government that anyone who does not qualify under the scheme is somehow not truly British or a second-class British citizen. We have never said that and have never sought to imply that. I fully understand, as I talked to Professor Hayward after I appeared before the PAC, that that is the feeling that he has got from the way in which this issue has unfolded.
	I will take on board my hon. Friend's remarks and I am still trying to urge the House not to think that I can come out with a scheme that everybody will be happy with or cheer at the end of the day. In truth, we might decide that there are no grounds to change the scheme—I have to be honest about that—but I must consider the issue when the report is completed on how we got into the difficulty of having two sets of criteria when we thought that we only had one. When the impact of that report on the operation of the scheme is resolved, I can judge whether any changes are needed in the scheme. I will then return to the House to make a further statement.

Philip Hollobone: Will the Minister tell the House what the administrative costs of the scheme have been since its implementation and how much these extra complications are likely to add to its overall budget?

Don Touhig: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman precise figures. Such schemes, of course, never come without a cost. I note his question and will write to him.

Paul Flynn: The scheme was inspired by a sense of justice and magnanimity to put right this ancient wrong. It has been carried out by the Ministry of Defence with mulish obstinacy and pettifogging bureaucracy. Why on earth did it not fully accept the ombudsman's report? It is only the third time in 30 years that the ombudsman has published such a report under section 10(3) of the rules. Instead of accepting it in full, the MOD tried to restrict the powers of the ombudsman and challenge those.
	Why has the Minister not mentioned the statement made by Mr. Burnham, the acting chief executive of the War Pensions Agency, who said:
	"we are . . . firmly of the belief that the evidence of individual cases suggests that the present stance will be impossible to defend on grounds of fairness and logic. It does not seem that rejection of these cases will be in keeping with the original intent and spirit of the scheme"?
	That timely warning was made not in 2005 but on 10 April 2001.

Don Touhig: When I have the answer to that last question, I will share it with my hon. Friend, but I do not have it now. He may think that the MOD has been mulish, but, on the contrary, it is because of a desire to get the compensation scheme up and running as quickly as possible that we introduced it without clearly defining the criteria according to which people would be eligible. There was a wish to compensate people in the speediest possible way.
	We did not accept the ombudsman's report at the time because—as my hon. Friend knows, because I gave evidence to his Committee—we did not believe that the ombudsman's assertions in the report were correct. Since then, my doubts about the operation of the scheme have been confirmed. That is why I am instituting an investigation and asking the permanent secretary to recommend an appropriate person to conduct it. I talked to the ombudsman after the hearing of the Committee of which my hon. Friend is a member, and I talked to her this morning, so she is fully apprised of what I am doing, and I hope that she will be fully supportive. She, I and everyone else want to get to the bottom of the matter and ensure that the scheme is resolved, and that is what I am determined to do.

Mark Harper: Of the outstanding claims, about 700 are for civilians who were in the camps. I do not think that the Minister dealt adequately with the question from my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), who asked whether those specific claims would be a priority for the MOD.

Don Touhig: If there are grounds for the scheme to be changed, obviously priorities will enter into the process. On the basis of my experience in dealing with the miners' compensation scheme, I think that priority should be given to the oldest, the most infirm and so on, so that they can gain some recognition.
	I shall consider the point made by the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), and if we review the scheme we may decide that it should be taken on board. I shall want to get the priorities right, and it may well form part of my considerations.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Armed Forces Bill

[Relevant documents: The First Report from the Defence Committee, Session 2005–06 (HC 747) on the Armed Forces Bill and the Second Report of the Constitutional Affairs Committee, Session 2005–06 (HC 731) on the Office of the Judge Advocate General.]
	Order for Second Reading read.

John Reid: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The Bill results from a comprehensive review of service law, the first comprehensive review since, I believe, the 1950s—about half a century.
	I served on the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill in both 1991 and 1996, so long ago that there was a Conservative Government—[Interruption.] At that time, they were the future. We identified the need for a comprehensive review of the Service Discipline Acts, but nothing happened. In the 1998 strategic defence review, over which I had the pleasure of presiding under the tutelage of the then Secretary of State, George Robertson—now Lord Robertson—the Government recognised that a single system of service law would better serve today's armed forces, which increasingly train and operate together on both the practical and the theoretical sides of combat and warfare, and in many other tasks. I believe that the Bill will deliver just that. It represents four years' work, at the centre of which have been the armed forces themselves. I commend the work that has been done since his appointment by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who has had to master the detail of a four-year summary of half a century of consideration of laws, some of which date back to centuries ago. It is a Bill that has at its centre the armed forces themselves. In that sense, it is a Bill for the armed forces and it has their full support, primarily because it meets their needs in a way that has been absent for decades.

Lindsay Hoyle: As my right hon. Friend will be aware, a statement was made on Friday about the decision not to prosecute the soldiers involved in the fake pictures that appeared in the Daily Mirror, which put at risk the lives of all armed forces personnel serving around the world. How does that fit with the changes in the Bill? The Crown Prosecution Service said that there was no case to answer, although we know that people abused their positions and used Army equipment to stage faked photographs that put so many lives at risk? Lives will continue to be at risk, as no one is going to have to face a court for what they did.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That sounds suspiciously like a failed urgent question to me. The hon. Gentleman should make briefer interventions.

John Reid: I shall have to give a briefer answer than is merited by the seriousness of the question. Prosecutions taken under military law by the armed forces prosecution services or investigations conducted by the special investigations branch are independent of Defence Ministers and the chain of command. That applies even more, if it were possible, to the Crown Prosecution Service. Decisions on whether to prosecute a case or not to proceed with it are quite properly taken independently of any responsibility, authority or power of Defence Ministers. It is therefore not possible for me to comment in practical terms on the reasoning behind the decision that my hon. Friend mentions and it would be quite improper for me to comment on it in judicial terms. I hope that my reluctance to answer does not in any way suggest to my hon. Friend that I underestimate the seriousness of the issue that he raises.

Julian Brazier: Before the intervention of the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), the Secretary of State was saying that the armed forces support the Bill. Whatever the service boards may say, does he not recognise the dismay of many in the chain of command, particularly in the middle ranks, at the fact that for serious non-summary offences, commanding officers are to be taken out of the loop? They are the very people who most understand the pressures that their men face, yet they are to be taken completely out of the decision on whether to prosecute.

John Reid: I shall return to the specific point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but I ask him to accept that—however gallant, committed and sympathetic to the armed forces either he or, indeed, the officers with whom he may have discourse from time to time may be—the chain of command has to be preserved. Incidentally, that is one of the main purposes of the Bill—to protect the military service system.
	The chain of command is represented by the chiefs of staff and those immediately under them, and when I say that the armed forces support the Bill, I mean it. They do: they operate their support through the chain of command, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not mean to impute that the case was anything other than as I described it. I am sure that he did not mean to question the truth of my statement about the representations that were made to me by the chiefs of staff and those who work with them or that the armed forces do not fully support what they said. I will turn my attention to the point that the hon. Gentleman raised, as I acknowledge that it is an important one and I agree with him about its seriousness and import.

Tobias Ellwood: Conservative Members are concerned about the challenge to the absolute authority of commanding officers. That is what affects discipline and morale and there is real concern that such authority is being challenged.

John Reid: I will attempt to explain as I go through my opening speech that the measures that have been taken are intended specifically to protect the system of military justice, which is self-sufficient and separate from civilian justice. In a democracy, there is sometimes the mistaken belief that military justice has to be exactly the same as that in civilian society. That is not the case, but wherever possible it is right—and, indeed, self-protecting—to ensure that the military system of justice approximates to the norms of civilian society, so far as is commensurate with operational effectiveness. The more that it does so, the more that we will protect the existence of the separate military system on which all of us in this House place importance.
	I hope that, as I go through my speech, the hon. Members for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) and for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) will see exactly why we are proffering these suggestions and proposals. Among other things, we want to avoid a repeat of the circumstances that led to the Trooper Williams case being dismissed before the trial finished and it being tried outside, in a civilian court. The intention is to prevent a recurrence of that situation, as I hope the hon. Gentlemen will see as I go through the argument.
	Given the comments that have already been made, I should point out that, like every person participating in this debate, I am immensely proud of the British armed forces. I am second to none in my admiration of them, and the whole House will share such admiration. We owe them our respect and gratitude, but we also owe them an effective system of military justice because they deserve it. I will shortly set out some of the Bill's key provisions, but given the issues raised and the suggestions made in interventions—indeed, some of them have also been made in the press—let me deal directly and head-on with what the Bill is not about and lay some myths to rest.
	This Bill is not about political correctness—one of the few offences, gladly, with which I have never been charged up to this point. It is not about creating a civilian system and, fundamentally, it is not about undermining the role of the commanding officer. It is about protecting and modernising our justice system and its relationship with the chain of command.
	No one, least of all those in the services, thinks that service personnel should be above the law; indeed, it is central to the degree of respect with which our forces are regarded throughout the world that they operate within the law. But plenty of nonsense has been written and spoken about police investigations and the risk of prosecutions in respect of operations. There seems to be the almost muddle-headed notion in some quarters that service personnel are reluctant to open fire because they fear that they will be prosecuted if they kill or seriously injure someone. That notion is utterly wrong and potentially dangerous.
	We train our forces to operate effectively and within the law that we lay down.

Gerald Howarth: Will the Secretary of State give way?

John Reid: I will give way in a second.
	We have robust rules of engagement and if our people use lethal force in conflict, of course it will not automatically result in a police investigation, still less a criminal prosecution. Equally, where there is a credible allegation or suspicion of a serious offence, there will be an investigation, almost certainly by the service police—not civilian police but service police—but an investigation does not mean that a prosecution will follow. Therefore, the maintenance of standards and the investigation of credible allegations—carried out by independent investigation and independent prosecuting authorities, both of which exist within the military system—are a necessary part of maintaining the standards for which we are so proud of our armed forces.
	This is not a case of one side arguing that no standards should be maintained and no allegations, however serious, investigated, and the other side saying that every allegation should be investigated—or even that every credible allegation should be investigated, leading to a prosecution. If someone wants evidence of that fact they need only look at the example of our latest theatre of operations, in Iraq. From memory, I think that some 80,000 soldiers and other servicemen and women have gone through Iraq in the various deployments, and among those some 183 cases have been investigated as involving allegations above the threshold of credibility. Of those cases, 20-odd have been pursued, and some five, I think, have come to trial. That is a commendation not only of the probity with which we conduct such matters, but of the high standards maintained by the British armed forces, even in the most difficult circumstances.
	I understand how much more difficult that is now, in what we call an asymmetrical battlefield. Those standards were difficult enough to maintain when the enemy whom we were fighting had some respect for international conventions such as the Geneva convention, for the norms of warfare that civilised countries have adopted, and for the moral conventions and constraints on action, especially action against innocent civilians. How much more difficult it is for our servicemen and women to maintain them when the enemy does not respect those conventions, or feel constrained by any degree of morality. I understand that, and I hope that everyone in the House, and all those who write commentaries outside, do too—but it is not a reason for abandoning the standards, the probity and the discipline of British forces, which have made them famous. Even in such circumstances, we will maintain those standards as well as we have always done.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Reid: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), because he indicated that he wanted to intervene some time ago, but was courteous enough to let me finish my point.

Gerald Howarth: I am grateful to the Secretary of State, and I am sure that everybody appreciates the assurances with which he is trying to soothe our concerns. However, he has been visiting our forces all around the world, and I have visited a number of them, both in my own constituency and elsewhere. Surely troops have mentioned to him that there is now a real fear that there is a possibility of men being second-guessed in the most difficult circumstances that they can face—or has he come away with the impression that there are no genuine concerns out there?

John Reid: Those issues have been raised with me, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman honestly that they have been raised mainly by soldiers asking me about press reports in which commentators, many of whom have never been near a battlefield, or even gone two rounds with a revolving door, far less been involved in combat, have pompously sounded off on that subject—although I am not, of course, saying that the Opposition Members here today are in that position. Such commentators accuse chiefs of staff with impeccable courageous credentials of being other than courageous. Of course those reports are read by soldiers and other servicemen and women, and of course I regret that.
	Incidentally, I have also seen that when the picture is painted here of the battlefield in places such as Iraq, and of the consequences and the outcomes of what our servicemen and women are struggling for, it is an unbalanced picture. This morning the BBC said that the fact that 69 per cent. of people in Iraq were looking forward to a better future appeared to suggest that some of the reporting and descriptions of what was going on there had been wide of the mark. I notice that the BBC did not add to the words "reporting and descriptions" the words "by the BBC".
	Of course I regret the comments that have been mentioned, and of course they are important; I do not blame hon. Gentlemen for raising them. However, the intention of the Bill is to strengthen and protect our military justice system by modernising and rendering it more effective in difficult circumstances, in relation to the chain of command. The intention is not to hand it over to civilian judgment. Indeed, the case of Trooper Williams, which I cited and which has caused concern in both Houses of Parliament and outside, would be far less likely to occur after these changes.

Adam Price: With regard to certain serious offences committed within the United Kingdom—for instance, manslaughter—the civilian authorities have primacy in investigation and exclusive jurisdiction over prosecution and trial in civilian courts. Will the Bill change that?

John Reid: No, it will make no difference. It is possible at the moment for manslaughter to be laid as a charge under military law, and that will not change.
	Legitimate concern is different from some of the over-dramatised reports that we read about the very few trials   arising from operations in Iraq. We have not hadwholesale investigations leading to wholesale prosecutions. As I said earlier, Defence Ministers have no power over, authority in, responsibility for or even oversight of the laying of charges or the prosecution of cases. Those are matters for the independent service prosecuting authorities, which decide whether a prosecution is warranted in any case referred to them. Hon. Members can form their own opinions about whether we share some of the same frustrations that people who are not in government feel as we regard certain developments, but it is proper—in a civilised, democratic society—for there be a separation between the ministerial code for running the armed forces, in conjunction with the chain of command, and the investigatory and prosecution authorities, which are naturally and properly independent. That is one of the factors that separate a democracy from a dictatorship.

Joan Humble: My right hon. Friend mentions the proper independence of the armed forces investigatory authorities. Will he re-examine the recommendation from the Defence Committee to introduce a system of independent oversight of investigations by the armed forces, because many families—and not only the Deepcut families, but those from other barracks—are concerned about the way in which the investigations were undertaken?

John Reid: In the case of Deepcut, we have appointed an independent inquiry and investigation, headed by the well known and well qualified QC, Nicholas Blake. In general, we have given serious consideration to the idea of an external, independent—by which, I take it, my hon. Friend means mostly civilian—complaints tribunal. I do not believe that that is appropriate, but I will have something to say about an independent element for the complaints procedure, which will go some way towards meeting the requests of the Defence Committee.

Lembit �pik: rose

John Reid: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but then I must make some headway.

Lembit �pik: My question relates directly to Deepcut. The Bill is the perfect opportunity to try to ensure that the legion errors made in investigating the still mysterious deaths of four young recruits at Deepcut barracks between 1995 and 2002 cannot happen again. I would have expected the Government to ensure that the concerns of parents and relatives and concern for the truth had been considered in phrasing the Bill. Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that there has been enormous resistance to sharing information about the deaths at Deepcut army barracks, and will he outline how the Bill might help to ensure that parents such as Des and Doreen James will never have to face a decade of uncertainty about what happened to their children while they were being trained for Army service?

John Reid: Yes, of course I understand the deep trauma and the tragedy and difficulties faced by parents and loved ones in this case. During the passage of the Bill we will try to introduce a degree of independent element to the complaints procedure. In respect of the insistence on an independent inquiry, without prejudicing anything that may come from the Blake inquiry into Deepcut, it is as well to remember that in the case of Deepcut, with all the difficulties we faced, the investigations were not carried out only by the armed forces. There was an independent element, from first one police force and then a second police force, and now there is a further independent elementa QC. Whatever systems and structures we set up, they cannot inevitably guarantee that such tragedies will have an explanation that is readily identifiable and readily acceptable to everyone. I know that not only from Deepcut, but, as the hon. Gentleman will know, from long experience in Northern Ireland. I fully and genuinely understand the deep feelings of the families involved and the terrible frustration and trauma, added to the tragedy of the loss of life, of searching for the unknown. I am aware of how difficult that is, but we have to await the outcome of the inquiry.

Pete Wishart: rose

John Reid: I will take one more question, but then I shall go for a long time without interventions.

Pete Wishart: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way again on this important issue. Will he describe in a little more detail what he means by independence in relation to the complaints commission? There is an expectation among not only the families but the general public that there should be the fullest possible public scrutiny of public bodies, so does the Secretary of State accept that the best way to resolve the issue would be through an independent military ombudsman? The public would then be satisfied that the complaints are dealt with properly.

John Reid: If the hon. Gentleman can indulge me by letting me get beyond page two of my speech I might reach some of the points that are being raised.
	I return to the point about the independent service prosecuting authorities who decide whether a prosecution is warranted in any case referred to them. They use the standard evidential test, based on a realistic prospect of a conviction, and the public interest test before they proceed. Another misconception is that military cases may arbitrarily be handed to civilian jurisdiction. That is not true, and I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Canterbury, who raised that issue earlier, is no longer in the Chamber, as it sounded as though he believed it.
	In relation to offences committed in the United Kingdom over which both our civilian and service courts have jurisdiction, protocols between the service and civilian police forces apply at the start of investigations. There are also a few offences for which our civilian courts have jurisdiction when the offence is committed by UK citizens abroada point to which reference was made earlier. The Attorney-General made it clear in another place that in exceptional cases he has a role in deciding between prosecuting authorities with overlapping jurisdictions, but in no caseno casehas he exercised that role without the agreement of the relevant service prosecuting authority. Therefore, the apparently widespread myth that the Attorney-General or anyone else would intervene contrary to the views of the service authorities, or without consultation or agreement with them, to allocate a case to the civilian authorities is just not true.
	Let us be perfectly clear that the Government are committed to retaining a separate system of service law. In our view, and in my view, that is essential to underpin operational effectiveness. The integrity of the system is essential if we are to retain the confidence of those who are subject to it, as well as those who are not. That involves professional and independent investigations into alleged serious offences and decisions on whether to prosecute being taken by an independent prosecutor with an understanding of the service contextthe one that I was speaking about earlierbut, moreover, there must be proper safeguards and support for those who face investigation and prosecution in the military system.
	Against that background on the major questions, let me turn now to the Bill itself, which is primarily about service discipline. It establishes for the very first time a modern, single system of service law. It defines offences, provides for the investigation of alleged offences and the arrest, holding in custody and charging of individuals accused of committing an offence. It makes provision for service personnel to be dealt with summarily by their commanding officer or tried by courts martial. It will retain the right of service personnel to elect trial by court martial and to appeal to the summary appeal court or the courts-martial appeal court as appropriate. That is all familiar. It is not revolution; it is, if anything, evolution.
	The most significant change in the Bill is that there will be one system, not three. In future, under the Bill, armed forces personnel of whatever service will be subject to the same system wherever in the world they are serving and in whatever unit or formation. That will enable the proper alignment of discipline and command, and it will do so across all three services, instead of relying on ad hoc arrangements for joint operations, as we must do at present. Moreover, all service personnel will be subject to the same rights, powers and duties when they are charged with an offence. That is not only clearer but fairer to all those who serve in the armed forces.

Alan Beith: Will the Secretary of State give way?

John Reid: Let me make a little progress, and then I will allow some more colleagues to intervene.
	I want to say a word or two about the offences under part 1. All offences under the Bill are service offences. They are divided into two types. First, as now, service personnel will remain subject to the ordinary criminal law of England and Wales wherever they are serving. Secondly, the disciplinary offences that are unique to service lawmany of which will be familiar, such as going absent without leave or lootinghave been reviewed and brought up to date. We have removed certain offences because they are no longer appropriate or no one is ever charged with them, or because they are more properly charged under other provisions or dealt with administratively. It is not just the offence of scandalous conduct of officers that has gone. Other examples include
	allowing sequestration of aircraft or ship by a neutral state in time of war
	and billeting and requisitioning offences.
	I want to say something now about the role of the commanding officer, which has featured in many interventions, before giving way to hon. Members. In our armed forces, commanding officers are responsible for the discipline of those under their command. A large part of the exercise of that discipline is done by example and leadership. Their authority is critical to the delivery of unit cohesion and operational effectiveness. As I said, that authority is primarily exhibited through their qualities of leadership and by inspiring the confidence, loyalty and trust of those who serve under them. Those qualities have long distinguished the British armed forces from many others throughout the world.
	Ultimately, commanding officers must have the power to enforce discipline throughout the military criminal justice system. The Bill provides commanding officers for the first time with harmonised powers to deal with all people under the command of whatever service. To create such harmonised powers, we are reducing thetheoretical extensive summary jurisdiction of commanding officers in the Royal Navy. I use the word theoretical because in reality those commanding officers do not exercise their powers over very serious matters, not least because their powers of punishment are far too limited. That might address points that hon. Members raised earlier. We are, however, increasing the powers of Army and Air Force commanding officers to deal with the small number of additional criminal offences that are set out in part 2 of schedule 1 with which, in straightforward cases, Navy commanding officers already deal summarily. There is thus some diminution of powers for the Navy, but a big increase within the armed forces.
	The summary powers of commanding officers recognise the importance of not only giving authority to COs but being able to deal with such matters expeditiously. As part of that recognition, we are also harmonising the powers of commanding officers to deal summarily with officers up to the rank of lieutenant-colonel and equivalent, subject to certain conditions.
	Part 5 of the Bill sets out the duties of commanding officers in respect of allegations that a serious offence has been committed. Clause 113 provides that a commanding officer will be required to inform the service police as soon as practicable in the event of an allegation of a specified inherently serious offence, or an offence for which certain prescribed circumstances apply. The service police, who may already be investigating the matter, are in turn required to refer the case to the independent director of service prosecutions if they think there is sufficient evidence to charge a person with one of the inherently serious offences. It is the director of service prosecutions who will decide whether to bring charges on the basis of proper tests and a real understanding of the military context. That is the kernel of the relationship among the commanding officer, the investigating officers and the director of service prosecutions.
	I stress that the offences that we are talking about are those that are inherently serious; they are ones of which there cannot be a minor example. They include civilian criminal offences such as murder and rape, other serious sexual offences, robbery, terrorism offences and so on. They also include some disciplinary offences that I am sure the whole House would agree are inherently serious, such as assisting the enemy and mutiny. The maximum sentence for those disciplinary offences is life imprisonment.
	I want to explain why we are making the changes, so that hon. Members can perhaps understand the way in which they are meant to protect the integrity and independence of the military system. At present, if a person is charged, the commanding officer has the power to dismiss a chargewhether the offence is serious, such as those that I have mentioned, or notwithout any form of hearing or evidence. Under existing law the result of such action means that even in extremely serious matters, such as those that I have just mentioned, dismissal excludes any further proceedings in the military system. Thus, the evidence is never heard and no decision in the case is ever taken by any independent service prosecuting authority. The case is dismissed by a commanding officer, no matter how serious, without any hearing, as I have said. That is theoretically possible. It has happened in practice. The case cannot then be tried at any other stage, whatever the misgivings, whatever the feelings thereafter or whatever the decision in the military system.
	That, however, is not necessarily the end of the matter. Where civilian courts also have jurisdiction, civilian authorities may take action. The jurisdiction of the civilian courts may come into play as a result of the services being prevented from taking any further action on the matter even if there is afterthought through just such a technicality. That is what I wanted to address and we wanted to address. It is the problem that gave rise to so much dissatisfaction over one particular case.
	The Bill will ensure that the director of service prosecutions will decide on serious cases, and that on serious cases a commanding officer's action cannot prevent further action by the services themselves. Some people have attacked the proposal as interfering with hallowed historical powers of commanding officers. It is simply wrong, however, that commanding officers alone must be able to decide whether to charge those under their command with serious offences such as rape or murder, and to do so without any hearing, or to dismiss a charge that has been brought without any form of hearing.
	Even if that were not wrong, which I believe it is, it gives rise to allocation afterwards to the civilian courts as the matter is prevented from any further consideration under the military system. I do not think that commanding officers should be placed in that position and have that responsibility placed on them for such offencesand nor do they. As long as they have such responsibility, the services will be open to recourse to civilian law as in the Trooper Williams case, which gave rise to so much antagonism and unease throughout the House, the other place and outside.
	I have explained to the House that we have taken these steps to prevent something of the sort from happening again.

Alan Beith: The Secretary of State has explained well why he has brought the Bill to this point, and I accept his reason. However, does he recognise, as the Constitutional Affairs Committee report indicates, that a problem has arisen? It is that a soldier could be tried for a murder that is alleged to have been committed in the United Kingdom, and convicted by three votes to two. That would not have happened to him if he had gone to the civilian court.

John Reid: I have not given that serious consideration. I understand that that issue has only recently arisen in the light of the report. The matter will certainly be given serious consideration in the course of our deliberations. One of the great strengths of the manner of investigating as well as debating the Bill is the hybrid nature of the Committee, which compensates for the length of time that is often taken. I am sure that that question will be considered during the course of our deliberations.

Liam Fox: It is worth pointing out that a court martial already has the ability to deal with charges such as murder on a 5:2 verdict if they occur overseas, so the position is not entirely inconsistent. Now that there is to be concomitant civil and military jurisdictions, and following further discussions between the Secretary of State and the Attorney-General, where exactly will the priority lie, when there is a choice, in deciding whether a case should be heard by a court martial or a Crown court?

John Reid: That is not a new problem. Joint jurisdiction already operates in such cases. In response to my inquiries, I can tell the House that cases that could be tried under military law have not be allocated to the civilian law courts without the agreement of the service authorities.

Philip Hollobone: I appreciate the Secretary of State's intention in introducing the Bill, but is there not a danger in complicated cases such as those following incidents in Northern Ireland? In retrospect, Her Majesty's armed forces who were engaged in ambushes on terrorists fleeing the scene could be prosecuted more easily for murder, although they were following the rules of engagement laid down by their commanding officer.

John Reid: I do not think that the situation has changed. Indeed, we want to try to make sure that there is not a blockage with summary dismissal in the military system that prevents it from being considered at any other stage and therefore compels such cases to go to the civilian system. We want to remove that blockage to ensure that, as far as is humanly possible, the person who looks at the evidence with a view to prosecutionthe director of service prosecutionsnot only considers the evidential test and the public interest but has experience of a military or combat situation. That is more important than ever, given, as I mentioned earlier, the asymmetric nature of warfare. Things that were regarded as unreasonable 20 or 30 years ago may, given the advent of suicide bombers who pretend to be prisoners and given other developments, now be considered reasonable. Actions that were considered beyond the bounds some time ago may now be considered reasonable, because of changed circumstances, not because of changes in the actions themselves. The person who is best placed to weigh the evidence of offence against mitigating circumstances is the director of service prosecutions, which is why I am trying to ensure that, as far as humanly possible, they make those decisions, independent of the chain of command, the Secretary of State and the civilian system.

Gordon Prentice: rose

John Reid: May I make some progress before giving way?
	As long as we fail to tackle the problem, cases such as the Trooper Williams case could reoccur. I want to try to avoid that, and it is my strong belief that it can be avoided. All offences can be dealt with properly under service law. The court martial is, and will remain, a court that complies with the European convention on human rights. It is right that even the most serious cases should be resolved within the service system once proceedings have begun. As we told the Defence Committee more than a year ago in a proposal that it described as sensible, the Bill will remove the power of commanding officers to dismiss such serious offences in the manner described, thus protecting the whole military system from gradual encroachment by the civilian system.

Gordon Prentice: Can soldiers who are charged with a serious offence such as murder opt for civilian jurisdiction rather than for court martial?

John Reid: No. They can apply for a court martial on a range of offences, but they cannot opt out in favour of the civilian system. They are members of the armed forces, and are subject to military discipline. We are trying to make sure that that military discipline and the military system itself can, as far as possible, deal with the most serious offences.

Gerald Howarth: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's desire to keep matters within the military family, so to speak. He said that as a result of the dismissal of the case of Trooper Williams by the commanding officer no further military action could be taken and the case could therefore be handled only by the civilian courts. The Secretary of State wants to interpose the military court instead of the civilian court, but that does not justify taking away from the commanding officer the power, particularly in the heat of battle and in the circumstances that we face in Iraq, to dismiss a case there and then. The right hon. Gentleman is in danger of eliding the two issues, but they are separate. Will he address that?

John Reid: In the heat of battle, the commanding officer would wish to reflect. That, I take it, is accepted. He would wish, presumably, to take advice, to consult, to have a hearing on an offence committed in the heat of battle such as murder or rape or another sexual offence. The problem is that summarily dismissing an offence of such seriousness without a hearing, which is what happens under the present system, creates a situation where, no matter who else in the military may feel that that decision was wrong, it cannot be dealt with further in the military. That is precisely the situation that arose in the case of Trooper Williams, which was the route whereby the matter was referred to the civilian court.
	If we contain such serious offences within the military, so that they have to be decided by the director of public prosecutions[Interruption.] Yes, I beg the House's pardon. If we ensure that the director of service prosecutions is the responsible body, we prevent another Trooper Williams case. Incidentally, although this was not the primary reason, the commanding officer is then freed up for the responsibility of giving succour, support, assistance and advice to his man or woman who is accused of the crime. There is no conflict of interest then between the commanding officer's duty of care to the individual concerned and the director of service prosecutions bringing a prosecution. By taking away the summary right to dismiss cases as serious as those described, without even a hearing, we are protecting the system from the course of events that caused the civilian system to intervene.

Gerald Howarth: rose

John Reid: I will allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene, but that is the last time, or there will be complaints that I have taken too long.

Gerald Howarth: I am extremely grateful to the Secretary of State. If, in the heat of battle, the commanding officer dismisses a casehe knows the man, he knows the circumstances and he can see that there is no case to answerand if subsequently it is perceived that that was a wrong decision which was entirely without foundation, in the present circumstances the case would have to be dealt with by the civilian courts. Why not leave it to the director of service prosecutions, on the basis of information laid by authority, to deal with the matter within the service, still leaving the commanding officer with the latitude to deal summarily with a difficult case?

John Reid: The hon. Gentleman is asking me to square a circle, which cannot be done. One cannot give absolute authority to the commanding officer summarily to dismiss a case and then say that the director of service prosecutions may overrule that authorityone cannot have both things. The ultimate arbiter on serious offences must be either within the armed forces or the commanding officer. If one chooses the commanding officer, problems arise in circumstances such as the Trooper Williams case, because there is no other place in the military where such a case can be tried by virtue of the fact that the absolute powers on summary dismissal lie with the commanding officer.
	When the Trooper Williams case was referred to the Attorney-General, the Attorney-General had no recourse other than the civilian courts, and I am protecting us against that occurring again. I accept that in the real world there is no ideal solution that would give the absolute power of decision both to the director of service prosecutions and to the commanding officer. I understand that any decision will have a downside, but I contend that for the armed forces as a whole, including the chain of command, which will be free to give succour and support to an individual accused by the director of service prosecutions under the commanding officer's care of duty, the upside far outweighs the downside. In the Trooper Williams case, the downside was the furore caused by its referral outside the services.
	I hope that I have spent sufficient time trying to answer that question.

Julian Brazier: Will the Secretary of State give way?

John Reid: No. The hon. Gentleman raised the matter, but then he was not presentno doubt for veryimportant reasonsduring 20 minutes of my explanation. It is not fair to other hon. Members for him to return and ignore everything that I have saidif he had sat here, he would still have ignored me, but it would at least have given me a degree of generosity towards him, which I do not feel compelled to extend tonight.
	I have made it clear that prosecutions will be independent from the chain of command and from Ministers. The investigators in the special investigation branch and the service prosecutors do a professional job, sometimes in the most demanding, difficult and dangerous circumstancesthey conduct investigations in conditions in which civilian police would not operate, and they have my admiration and support. The Bill reinforces their relationship with the director of service prosecutions in a similar way to the relationship between their civilian counterparts and the Director of Public Prosecutions.
	Where the commanding officer is considering what action to take on offences over which he has powersthe hon. Member for Aldershot has raised this pointlegal advice will, as now, be available. Under the Bill, he may choose to deal with an offence summarily, or he may decide to refer the matter to the prosecuting authorities, because he does not want to exercise his summary powers and believes that a court martial would be more appropriate. He may discontinue proceedings, but that would not prevent further action by the services at a later stage, if it were justified.
	If the commanding officer deals with the matter summarily and finds it proved, he will go on to award a punishment. Where he refers the matter to the director of service prosecutions, the director will decide whether to bring a prosecution and what the charge shall be. In all cases tried by court martial, the director of service prosecutions will determine the charge, but the commanding officer will bring it formally by notifying the individual concerned, which, as I have said, will free up and reinforce his role in implementing the CO's duty of care in ensuring that someone under his command who is subject to proceedings under service law is properly supported and advised.
	I have spent so much time on that aspect of the Bill because it is central to the military criminal justice system. I want briefly to turn to other matters in the Bill that involve further changes to the current system.

Lembit �pik: rose

John Reid: I shall give way one last time, and that is it.

Lembit �pik: I do not want to start a major debate about Deepcut, but the Secretary of State will be aware that one of the findings in that case involved the question of mindsetthe police had a questionable mindset in that they were willing to accept an explanation of suicide on relatively superficial evidence. Will the Secretary of State assure me that he intends the Bill to address the question of mindset? Will he ensure that an objective analysis is made of any accusations with regard to impropriety within, in particular, the training element of the armed forces?

John Reid: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concentrating on Deepcut and its importance. He will understand, however, that the essence of an independent review, which people constantly demand in such circumstances, is that I do not decide what I am going to do before it reports. Let us wait for that report. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will pay attention in the course of the debate to the general matters that the hon. Gentleman raises.
	The Bill creates two military courtsthe court martial and the summary appeal courtto replace existing courts provided for under the Service Discipline Acts. The court martial will be a standing court and replace courts martial convened on an ad-hoc basis to deal with individual trials. Like the Crown court, this standing court will be able to sit in more than one place at a time and to deal with different cases. It is not a single court in permanent session. The main advantages of a standing court are that it will be more efficient by reducing some administrative arrangements and making it easier to arrange for preliminary matters to be dealt with.
	In addition, the Bill creates a service civilian court to replace the standing civilian court that was established in 1976. Like its predecessor, this court may only sit overseas. It has powers equivalent to those of a magistrates court when dealing with offences committed by those civilians who are described in the Bill as subject to service discipline. For the court martial and the service civilian court, the Bill creates a more modern and appropriate sentencing regime which primarily reflects changes introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
	Importantly, we believe that improvements in speed and efficiency will come from the changes I have described. At the moment, every single case charged must first go to the commanding officer. He looks into the matter. If he thinks that it should go to court martial, he refers it to higher authority in the chain of command. In turn, higher authority refers the case to the prosecuting authority. However, in serious cases the service police will, while keeping the commanding officer informedthat is importantsend the case straight to the director of service prosecutions, who will determine any charge to be brought.
	Finally, I turn briefly to two other key areas in the Bill that deal with non-disciplinary matters. The first is the redress of grievance system, which some hon. Members have mentioned. Service personnel will retain a right to complain about any matter where they think themselves wronged. However, the current system takes too long and involves consideration through successive layers in the command chain. We want to improve that. We shall introduce a more streamlined system that will reduce the bureaucracy and provide for the majority of matters that cannot be resolved by the commanding officer to pass quickly to a panel outside the chain of command with powers delegated to it by the Defence Council. Moreover, we have provided in certain cases for a person who is independent of the chain of command, not a civil servant, to sit on the panel.
	The second area is that of harmonised provision for service inquiries. We think it essential that the services retain the ability to hold internal investigations to establish the facts of a matter and to make recommendations to prevent a recurrence. That is what boards of inquiry, as they are currently known, are for. As now, much of the detailed procedure and powers of such inquiries will be made in subordinate legislation.
	I have spent a considerable amount of time introducing the Bill because I am aware of its importance to the House and to the armed forces. The armed forces deserve nothing less than a fair and modern criminal justice system with all the appropriate safeguards. That is why, on becoming Secretary of State, I ordered a review of the support we give to those accused under service law. Those who serve their country are entitled to be sure that we will carry out the duty of care as seriously as they would wish us to. I have seen the outcome of that review. I am satisfied at present that the support that we give them is of a high order and in the tradition of the responsibility that commanding officers have to those under their command. That level of support must and will continue under a single system of service law.
	I believe that the reforms in the Bill should be welcome to those who serve in today's forces. The Bill recognises the special circumstances, risks, dangers and demands that we place on service personnel. Its key purpose is to provide them with a fair, modern system of criminal justice that will underpin their operational effectiveness, of which every Member of this House is justly proud. I hope that the Bill will serve them well into the future. If it serves them as well as they serve their country, it will have been the accomplishment that we set out to achieve. I commend the Bill to the House.

Liam Fox: This major new Bill will have far-reaching consequences for all members of Her Majesty's armed forces. Conservative Members will judge it against the essential criterion that it must reinforce operational effectiveness and reinforce, not undermine, military ethos.
	As the Secretary of State pointed out, the Ministry of Defence has been working on the Bill for some five years. It is therefore a little regrettable that we received the explanatory notes only last Wednesday. However, as we will have the opportunity to consider the Bill in some considerable detail in a special Select Committee, taking evidence from witnesses, we shall not oppose its Second Reading, although we reserve our position as regards Third Reading. There are grounds for supporting the Bill's objectives, if not all of its detailnot least where it brings disciplinary procedures into line with operational procedures.
	As the Secretary of State pointed out, it is a much-valued tradition in the House that at the outset of each defence debate, whatever the specific topic, we pay sincere and deserved tribute to the courage and professionalism of all the men and women of our armed services, in whom this country can and does take pride.
	I have long had an interest in defence matters. Indeed, one of the reasons why I was drawn into politics was the campaign against the unilateralists in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmamenta battle that I look forward to rejoining in the coming months. I had the pleasure of serving for five years as a medical officer, albeit as a civilian, in the Royal Army Educational Corps tri-service centre at Beaconsfield. That gave me a useful insight into the Army medical services as well as issues relating to welfare provision for service families.
	The pride in our armed forces that has already been expressed in this debate rests in part upon how officers and servicemen and women deliver military power with self-restraint and discipline. It is greatly to be regretted that there are increasing misgivings among the armed forces about the rules of engagement and the extent to which soldiers, in particular, are being held to account for their actions in extremely difficult circumstances. While we deliberate in this air-conditioned House of Commons, several thousand miles away in Iraq soldiers have to make life and death decisionsa situation made even more challenging, as the Secretary of State acknowledged, by the phenomenon of the suicide bomber. If they hesitate, they may be killed; if they are too hasty, they know that they may face a court martial.

Lindsay Hoyle: What is the hon. Gentleman's view on the George Mendonca case?

Liam Fox: I shall come to that issue later, when it is appropriate for me to do so.
	Perhaps the most graphic example of the situation was described in an article in The Sunday Times on 6 November, which reported a senior Royal Army Medical Corps doctor saying that in Basra he and his colleagues had been counselling young soldiers who
	feared a military investigation as much they did the insurgents.
	Even more alarming is the assertion that
	There doesn't appear to be any overt consideration or understanding of the pressures that our soldiers are under. The unpopularity of the war at home and a belief that firing their rifles in virtually any circumstances is likely to see them end up in court are sapping morale.
	The reality of that would undoubtedly be contested but the perception exists, and perception affects behaviour. We must take that into account in our debate.
	One corporal said that troops arriving in Basra were confronted with warnings from the Royal Military Police that every incident would be investigated and that, if they shot someone, they would face an inquiry that could take up to a year. Hon. Members of all parties accept that to achieve the goal of maximum operational effectiveness, discipline must be maintained and that, therefore, an effective system of military justice must be in place. The system must support commanding officers and the rights of those serving at every level. That is a difficult balance, but it must be struck.
	No hon. Member believes that members of the armed forces should be above the law. Indeed, according to the manual of military law, those in our armed forces are not only subject to the law of the land, but the disciplinary environment is maintained by supplementing the ordinary criminal law and judicial system with a special code of discipline and a special system for enforcing it.
	For all our servicemen and women, it is essential that justice is done and seen to be done. That is important not only for the standing of our armed forces at home and abroad, but for their morale. Discipline must be clear, coherent, transparent, efficient and fair. Perhaps above all, there must be a clear link between discipline and command, as several of my hon. Friends have said. If the link is broken, it means that those who have to make life or death decisions on the spur of the moment may worry as much about the legal consequence of their actions as about the actions. That is potentially catastrophic for our operational capabilities. What a tragedy if our serving men and women were to become as afraid of lawyers as of insurgents.
	We must always remember that the armed forces are different and need to be different. They are asked, in the name of our national security, to take lives and, at times, to give lives in a way that ordinary civilians are never required to do. The system of discipline that is applied to them and the considerations around it need to take fully into account that those involved are in potentially lethal situations. The position is unique and must be tackled as such.
	Ministers have often stated that servicemen and women should reflect or be representative of British society. Although I agree that our forces should reflect the make-up of society at large, I put it to the House that the outstanding success of our armed forces derives from their adherence to a set of values which is, all too often, in short supply in society. Furthermore, when soldiers undertake operations, they operate under a different set of circumstances, which must be acknowledged by the law, and for which the wholesale adoption of civilian legal procedures is not appropriate. The Secretary of State made that point in his opening speech.

Chris Bryant: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, not least because I have not been present for the whole debate, for which I apologise.
	The hon. Gentleman said that servicemen and women operate in different circumstances. Today, in marked contrast to 30 or 40 years ago, those circumstances include the fact that they nearly always work alongside nationals of other countries and with armed forces of other nationalities. Sometimes, when there is a difference in perception of the disciplinary structure and systems of different nationalities, it may cause distress and further complications. How does he believe that we can reconcile that?

Liam Fox: Far be it from me to attempt to put words into the Secretary of State's mouth, but it is difficult enough to reconcile the disciplinary position between the three services in this country without trying to reconcile it with the disciplinary procedures for other forces serving abroad. In any case, in some details, for example, in the Falklands and Iraq, our soldiers often operate by themselves and have to be subject to a British disciplinary code that is based on British law. Surely that is the correct position for British armed forces.
	The correspondence between the Attorney-General and the Secretary of State's predecessor, which was discovered during a recent legal action, is extremely revealing. An article in The Observer on 27 February reported that the Attorney-General wanted to replace the Army prosecuting authority with criminal lawyers from outside the Army, an intervention about which, I am pleased to say, the former Secretary of State said that it
	did indeed cause me concern.
	Such a move would be a grave mistake.
	Ministers need to understand that, in many parts of the services, there is a general anxiety about the increasing threat to the disciplinary traditions of the armed forces. Perhaps it was best put by the former Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Boyce, when he spoke in a debate in the other place on 14 July. He said:
	The Armed Forces are under legal siege and are being pushed in a direction that will see such an order being deemed as improper or legally unsound. They are being pushed by people not schooled in operations but only in political correctness. They are being pushed to a time when they will fail in an operation because the commanding officer's authority and his command chain has been compromised with tortuous rules not relevant to fighting and where his instinct to be daring and innovative is being buried under the threat of liabilities and hounded out by those who have no concept of what is required to fight and win.[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 July 2005; Vol. 673, c. 1236.]
	There will undoubtedly be a debate on how true that perception is. However, its existence is debilitating. There is a particular anxiety about the operation of the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998 and its impact on service law, of which we had several recent examples. The basic problem is that no set-aside was made for the military. When debating the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), who was then shadow Foreign Secretary, called for us to do as the French had done and exercise a seven-year opt-out. He also called for a watertight opt-out, which would enable Ministers who were confident that a case was vexatious to ensure that a warrant was not executed against a member of Her Majesty's armed forces. Neither proposal was heeded.
	Several cases that involve the Human Rights Act or the ICC are causing considerable anxiety, for example, that involving Colonel Mendonca and six other members of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment and the Intelligence Corpsthe first brought against British personnel under the ICC. We heard today about the case of Trooper Williams. That raises suspicions in some quarters that the prosecuting authority behaved in a way more compatible with political than judicial priorities.

John Reid: I want to make a small technical, but important point. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I do not make decisions about how to prosecute. I have neither authority nor accountability for them. Nevertheless, we should be accurate. The charges have not been brought against the soldiers whom the hon. Gentleman named or referred to under the ICC. The two pre-existing charges in English law have been brought under the International Criminal Court Act 2001, which is different. The two charges, which are inhumane treatment and manslaughter, already existed. They are English law charges that have merely been incorporated in the ICC Act as the latest relevant measure under which they could be brought.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that hon. Members are well aware of the position with regard to some cases. Some of them are under consideration and I am sure that both hon. Gentlemen appreciate that it would not do to be too precise in those matters.

Liam Fox: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before you took the Chair, I was careful to say that I would answer a question that a Labour Member asked me but within the scope that I would be allowed in the Chamber.
	Perhaps the clash between the legal and judicial purists and the pragmatists is at its clearest in the abolition of the reviewing authority. There, the purist interpretation of judicial function comes into conflict with the traditional way in which service discipline has been upheld. On the one hand, it could be clearly understood that involving the reviewing authority in a purely judicial process could be perceived as anomalous. Indeed, that view has been presented on several occasionscertainly, the European Court holds it.
	On the other hand, the Select Committee drew attention to the fact that the reviewing process contributes to the efficient running of service disciplinary procedures, and acts in the interests of promoting justice. There is certainly no case for believing that the reviewing authority is detrimental to the interests of service personnel; it can reduce sentences but not increase them, so there is no concept of double jeopardy. The Government must decide whether to pander to the judicial purists or to maintain a system that has worked particularly effectively in the past.
	I shall now come to other aspects of the Bill. The fact that there has been an increase in the number of joint units commends itself to a unified disciplinary code and a tri-service Act. This is the greatest justification for the Bill. Frankly, the alternativethe appointment of separate commanding officers for the different servicescould lead to inconsistency and disparity in the treatment of individuals, although it is also worth pointing out that when that happened in the Falklands, for example, commanders in the field were able to work in a constructive and practical way to resolve the issues.
	On commanding officers' powers, there clearly has to be a compromise between the Army and the RAF on the one hand and the Royal Navy on the other. That will mean a change in the operational conditions for all concerned. As the Secretary of State pointed out, it will mean a reduction in the summary powers of naval commanding officers, and a concomitant increase in those powers for commanding officers in the Army and the RAF. We are concerned, as was the Select Committee, to ensure that those commanding officers are given the appropriate training to ensure that they make responsible use of their new powers. A system of revision must be undertaken to ensure that discrepancies do not arise in the execution of the new powers.
	It is important that, as far as is possible, the commanding officer has ultimate authority over the unit, and sufficient latitude to enable him to deliver operational effectiveness. The commanding officer is at the centre of the system of discipline and is responsible for the behaviour of those under his or her command. It is the knowledge that the CO has the power to dispense summary justice that helps to mould a unit, as well as the leadership to which the Secretary of State referred. The CO's dispensation of justice is a key means of commanding respect, which is part of that leadership. Given the increased number of cases facing the Royal Navy, it is also important, in a practical sense, that expeditious processes result in minimal disruption as a result of the increased number of courts martial that will inevitably happen, especially when witnesses are required who are currently serving on one of Her Majesty's ships. I hope that the Minister will be able to deal with that point in his reply this evening.
	The introduction of a single prosecuting authority is a sensible move in the interests of efficiency, as it will bring the structures of authority in line with the changes in tri-services rules. Likewise, a unified courts martial system is appropriate, with the support authorities also being brought into alignment. We have one concern, however, about the unified courts martial system, and perhaps the Secretary of State could deal with it now. It relates to the Government's almost baffling refusal to allow randomly selected panels.
	Most of us in this country believe that randomly selected juries underpin our judicial system and guarantee independence in the operation of the court system. The panel for a court martial being chosen rather than selected on a random basis will create an unnecessary hostage to fortune for those who wish to portray military discipline as having the potential to be influenced by other interests. A randomly selected panel would be a strong bulwark against that false charge being made by those who want to see further interference in military disciplinary procedures. I hope that the Government will consider this matter constructively, and an early answer would be greatly appreciated.

Julian Brazier: Is my hon. Friend aware that a recent letter from the Adjutant-General, revealed in another place, stated:
	With current legal, political and ginger group interest in the deaths of Iraqi civilians during operation telic: our investigation and subsequent failure to offer for prosecution could become a cause celebre for pressure groups, and a significant threat to the military justice system.[Official Report, House of Lords,14 July 2005; Vol. 673, c. 1222.]
	How right my hon. Friend is.

Liam Fox: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. As I said at the outset, the system must be transparent and fair. That means that we must consider all the elements of our civil system that could be transposed on to the military system without in any way debilitating military justice. We must also recognise the elements of military justice that are unique and must be retained, in order for the vital link between command and discipline to be maintained.

Alan Beith: The hon. Gentleman made an interesting point about randomly selected panels. Did he look at the points raised by the Judge Advocate General in front of the Constitutional Affairs Committee, including the suggestion that the panels should be larger, particularly for cases involving more serious offences? He also questioned whether it made sense for the panels to be involved in sentencing.

Liam Fox: The right hon. Gentleman raises important issues. One of the advantages of the Select Committee is that so much evidence can be considered and so many weighty issues can be taken into account. That was the correct procedure to use in relation to the Bill, and I hope that the Government will ensure that there is sufficient time to consider this and subsequent parts of the Bill so that the House can fully take into account the breadth of detailed knowledge available on many of these subjects.
	The Bill's bringing together the procedures of the boards of inquiry also makes sense, although, unlike the Select Committee, we believe that they should be conducted in a similar manner to the present one, and that there should be no automatic right for any individual, including next of kin, to attend the inquiry at board level. We would continue with the present arrangements, which have served well the interests of the services, of individuals and of justice.
	On the question of issuing contracts for armed forces personnel similar to those for civilians, I have already noted that the position of the armed forces is different. Those who are required to operate in exceptional circumstances need to do so on a basis of contractual law that reflects those operational requirements, but which also reflects the fact that they fall within an augmentation of civil law rather than a substitute for it. Those who put their lives on the line cannot be treated in the same way, in terms of contractual law, as those who stack the shelves of our supermarkets.
	An important question that the House must consider relates to the timetable for review of this legislation. It has been the practice to carry out five-yearly renewal of primary legislation relating to the armed forces disciplinary code, with an annual order to keep the matter under constant review. The case has been made that the annual review does not give adequate time for the bedding down and assessment of new arrangements. However, the annual review mechanism gives the House a chance to maintain constant surveillance over what is happening. At a time when domestic and short-term issues often crowd the political agenda, the annual review at least affords the House a regular opportunity to discuss what is happening in relation to service disciplinary procedures, and to introduce further primary legislation if required. Recent cases of primary legislation in response to European Court of Human Rights judgments demonstrate why it is necessary to consider this difficult and ever-changing subject far more frequently than every five years. We hope that this issue will be considered in Committee.
	This is an important and complex Bill. Many of its measures depend on a complicated balance of judgments, and we shall consider that balance in detail during the passage of the Bill. We need a system of justice that recognises the unique position of those serving in our armed forces, and that gives them the full confidence to do what they need to do in our name. Reform in this field is justified, but it must not be used as an excuse fundamentally to alter the culture of our armed forces disciplinary codes. The armed forces are different, and they must be treated as such. The link between command and discipline is utterly fundamental. Let us have reform, yes, but let us not put the purists before the pragmatists. As we carry out these reforms, let us keep a sense of proportion and of natural justice, and an understanding of just how much we ourselves owe.

Linda Gilroy: I welcome this Bill for the reasons that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence set out. It is evolutionary, not revolutionary, despite some of the earlier comments of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). It enhances at least to a modest degree the provisions for independence, although not to anything like a sufficient degree, a point to which I want to refer later. In many respects, it builds on the qualities to which my right hon. Friend rightly referred as distinguishing leadership in our armed forces. It also harmonises the law in a way that I think that we all agree is essential in a world in which there are so many joint operations, and in which our armed services face great dangers in the many theatres of operations in which they put their lives on the line for us. In some ways, the Bill maintains and enhances the commanding officer's ability to enforce discipline where that proves necessary. Listening to my right hon. Friend, it also brings clarity to the role of, and relationship between, the service and civilian courts, thereby addressing the problem of cases such as that of Trooper Williams where clarity has been lacking and that has gone on to foster angst and antagonism.
	For all those reasons, I welcome the fact that we have at last arrived at Second Reading of a Bill that has been a long time in the making. As a new member of the Defence Committee, I do not want to pretend that I can yet begin to offer a well-informed view on all the 375 clauses and 15 schedules. However, I want first to deal with some issues in the later clauses that were raised by the Defence Committee in relation to the importance of independence in the system. Several hon. Members referred to them in interventions. Specifically, I want to deal with proposals about redress for individual grievances in clauses 330 to 333. Secondly, I want to comment on the issue raised by the Defence Committee most recently in its report to the House on 8 December in relation to clause 371 dealing with the duration of legislation and the provisionor lack of it, to which the hon. Member for Woodspring just referredfor annual renewal of legislation by Order in Council.
	On the first of those matters, my right hon. Friend's remarks about the grievance and disciplinary procedure and the explanatory notes are clear. The explanatory notes rightly state:
	the terms of service of service personnel are not governed by domestic employment law
	and that the
	statutory redress system has therefore always been of importance if a service person is to be allowed to complain about any matter where he thinks himself wronged in relation to his service.
	Currently, that complaint
	proceeds through a service person's commanding officer, through various layers of the command chain, to the Defence Council. In those circumstances the Service Board of the complainant's Service act for the Defence Council . . . These procedures have been found, in practice, to be slow. Service Boards have been overloaded with cases which has led to delay in cases being resolved. The clauses in the Bill are designed to speed up the process.
	I welcome the potential offered by clauses 330 to 333 for doing that, because all hon. Members recognise that delay in dealing with individual grievances is one of the most common causes of distress to constituents, not just in relation to complaints in the armed services but to all the many complaints that Members receive in the course of our duties. Those clauses are to be welcomed, especially if, as I understand it, they are to be accompanied by the greater availability of mediation through the welfare services.
	Those clauses are perhaps less to be welcomed in their very limited introduction of an independent voice. That is referred to in clause 332(6), which states that the regulations mayonly may
	require, in the case of any service complaint of a prescribed description, a service complaint panel to include one independent member.
	Even with an understanding of the very different culture of the armed services, that seems to be a minimalist and inadequate response to the recommendation of the Defence Committee, repeated in our report to the House of 8 December. We referred to the duty of care report of the previous Defence Committee, which recommended the establishment of an independent complaints commission and set out the general responsibilities and powers that such a commission should have. It should have powers independent of the armed forces, its recommendations should be binding, it should have the power to consider past cases and it should have access rights to all documentation and persons. In their response, the Government stated that they would consider introducing an independent element and the detailed implications of that.
	The Bill as introduced to the House provides for the establishment of that service complaints panel, but from the information in the Bill, it appears that the independent element in the complaints system consists only of that single voice on the panel. I hope that that will be reflected on in the scrutiny of the provision in the special Select Committee. Even with an understanding of the very different culture of the armed forces, there is much more scope for bringing an independent voice to such considerations. I hope that my right hon. Friend will reflect on his thinking on the matter and on whether the mechanisms that he will need to put in place for decisions in relation to the independent panel member, even in such a limited, minimalist complaints panel, might turn out to be a sledgehammer to crack a nut. He will have to consider the sort of decision making that will have to be involved, which might become an unnecessary focal point for the continuing concern about the fairness of the grievance procedure.
	To some extent, that consideration depends on the numbers and types of complaints that can be expected to be dealt with through such panels. The explanatory notes refer specifically to bullying and harassment as appropriate types of complaints. I wonder how many other types of complaints there will be and whether, if the number is small, the cake will be worth the candle of setting up a process to decide which types of complaint fall into the non-independent category, especially, if it opens up yet another avenue for dispute and delay. It might be simpler just to bite the bullet and ensure that, if there is an independent dimension to the service complaints procedure even to that modest extent, it is at least truly independent.
	Certainly, there is no shortage of people with the tools of objectivity and skills in dispute resolution and arbitration. Professional training and accreditation for those who practise in those areas have progressed a great deal in recent years, and the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution are among a number of good sources. Those are also good sources of knowledge on how a strong framework of mediation can be built into the whole system. Mediation, at its best, is strong, not wishy-washy as some people would characterise it. It can add value to any organisation and can mean a win-win outcome achieved more often. If there is the knowledge that there is an automatic independent dimension further down the line for those cases that reach the complaints panels and mediation is worked into the welfare package, that is likely to help to resolve more cases earlier. That is surely desirable. It might head off difficult situations such as those that arose during investigation of the events at Deepcut. We do not want to resolve such cases when they have gone so far down the line. If the clause in its present form is as far as the Government will go, calls for more rather than less are likely to continue. As the hon. Member for Woodspring said, we need a system under which justice is not only done but seen to be done.
	Clause 371 provides for a quinquennial review of the legislation. It is silent, as are the explanatory notes, on the current annual renewal of SDAs in intervening years by Order in Council, approved in draft by both Houses. For the reasons given in the Select Committee report, I see no case for dropping the annual renewal. It is a long-standing constitutional convention. Moreover, as a glance at the Hansard record of the annual debates will reveal, it allows for discussion of constituency experience of how the present legislation is working, of Members' experience of the armed services and of their experience of the parliamentary scheme. Matters raised in Defence Committee reports are often brought up during the annual debates, as is progress towards producing legislation. Arguably, after the Bill is passed, it will make even more sense for us to have such an annual opportunity and I do not think that the requirement for delegated legislation is likely to cause much concern to the business managers.

Bob Russell: Does the hon. Lady have any idea who is asking for the annual review to be dropped?

Linda Gilroy: As I said a moment ago, the explanatory notes are silent on that. Perhaps when he sums up, my hon. Friend the Minister will give us some indication of how strongly the Government feel about a matter that I am sure will be closely scrutinised by the special Select Committee. Perhaps at that stage some arguments will be advanced in its favour or perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to tell us tonight that the Government have an open mind and may table a modest amendment at either the Select or Standing Committee stage.
	Along with my colleagues on the Defence Committee, I shall follow closely the progress of this long-awaited and very important Bill.

Michael Moore: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy), both because of the issues that she raised, to some of which I shall return, and because of her work on the Defence Committee. The Committee's work is very important to the quality of our debate. The right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) is present and he may wish to speak later.
	Let me also belatedly congratulate the new shadow Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). As ever, he has brought his energy and intellectual sharpness to the debate and I look forward to what will happen over the next few months. At the very least, he maintains the Scottish stranglehold on the defence portfolio on both sides of the House. I apologise for having missed his debut last week when he responded to a statement on a very serious matter, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) responded on behalf of my party. It was a reminder to all of us of the seriousness of the context in which today's debate takes place.
	All of us rightly pay tribute to the professionalism, dedication and bravery of our armed forces time and again. As was pointed out earlier, as we debate in the safety of the Chamber, they put their lives at risk in many parts of the world. We must never forget that.
	The importance of the Bill is obvious from the difficult demands placed on servicemen and women day in, day out. The Secretary of State highlighted that when he spoke of the terrible growth in asymmetric warfare in recent years and the difficulties involved in dealing with enemies and others who do not operate according to the value systems and rules that we observe and expect others to observe. Recent court cases have drawn attention to issues that have been raised here today. I am sure that they will bring some of the Bill's proposals into sharp relief and make our scrutiny all the closer.
	Proper service discipline is fundamental to our operational effectiveness and it is fundamental to our role in the world that our armed forces operate within the law and not above it. In considering appropriate legislation for the armed forces, we must try to balance complex and sometimes competing priorities. As others have said, the Bill represents a significant overhaul and modernisation of service legislation and we broadly support it. Given the changing nature of warfare and peacekeeping, which demand interoperability and joint operations, it makes sense to consolidate the Service Discipline Acts and to harmonise legislation with civilian justice where that is appropriate. We support the objective of ensuring consistency and fairness across all the services.
	Today marks the start of the long process of passing the new legislation, but the process of scrutiny has been under way for some time. The House is indebted to the work of the Defence Committee, whose first report of the Session on the Bill draws the House's attention to key issues to which I, like others, will return. The Committee's work builds on that of its predecessor in the last Parliament, whose report on the Tri-Service Armed Forces Bill and duty of care report have made invaluable contributions to our considerations. The same can be said of the report from the Constitutional Affairs Committee, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), which was published today. We should also express our gratitude to the Library for its rapidly produced briefing paper, which is important to our debate today and to the detailed consideration that will follow.
	The one disappointmenthere I echo the hon. Member for Woodspringis the delay in the publication of the official explanatory notes. I join others in paying tribute to the quality and hard work of those responsible for that complex task, but parliamentary scrutiny is not assisted when explanatory notes are not available for several days after the publication of a Bill.
	The unique status and importance of the Armed Forces Bill is reflected in the special procedures allowing its consideration by a Select Committee. The details of the timing and the balance between the Select and Standing Committee aspects are still to be established, but we support the broad thrust of what has been said about the time that will be available between now and the end of April. A single day for recommittal to the whole House for the Committee stage and Third Reading seems barely adequate, but on balance we support the programme motion.
	Let me turn to the proposals in the Bill. As past White Papers and recent experience show, joint operations are an increasingly common feature of service life. Training for such missions, and the operations themselves, throw up critical issues. Commanding officers do not have disciplinary powers over all whom they command, and naval commanding officers in particular enjoy different powers from those of their Army and Air Force counterparts. That is unacceptable in this day and age and clearly needs to be changed. We welcome the proposals that have been put forward to do so. The existence of separate Service Discipline Acts makes the use, interpretation and amendment of legislation more complicated than it need be and perpetuates inconsistencies. In that context, harmonisation makes sense.
	The Bill is intended to equalise the scope of offences that can be heard summarily by commanding officers and the sentences that can be imposed. At the same time, the CO's ability to dismiss charges for offences for which he or she has no summary powers is to be taken away and investigative responsibility is to be handed to the police, independent of the chain of command. Those are large changes, already the subject of much discussion and debate this afternoon, but we believe that they are right and proper. Like others, however, we will want to look carefully into the detail.
	We need to ensure that the operational effectiveness of commanding officers is not compromised by the changes to their roles. As others have highlighted, they will require appropriate training in due course. On a broader plain, we must not overburden any of our armed forces with legal constraints that undermine their ability or confidence to take appropriate action, not least in hostile circumstances in which lives are at risk. However, we also have a duty to those same armed forces to ensure that they are treated in a manner consistent with domestic and international law and a wider duty to observe our international obligations and equip the services with the procedures and disciplines that ensure that they can carry them out. The detail of the Bill will be considered in Committee so that it can be assessed against those tests, but we support its underlying principles in that respect.
	The report of the Constitutional Affairs Committee, following evidence from the Judge Advocate General, raises a number of important issues for the House to consider in respect of the administration of justice, which changes significantly under the Bill. It highlights the military court servicecurrently run by the Ministry of Defence, but recommended to be brought under and resourced by the Department for Constitutional Affairs. The appropriate type of court martial should be chosen, it is argued, by judge advocates, not by the prosecution. Another issue, already debated this afternoon, is for more serious offences to be put through the court martial, which surely creates a strong argument for larger panels, not least for offences punishable by imprisonment of 14 years or more. The Secretary of State's willingness to revisit that issue should be welcomed on both sides of the House. These are serious matters that require close scrutiny and we will listen carefully to the Government's response.
	The Judge Advocate General also made observations about the length of time that trials take. In his evidence to the Select Committee, he specifically raised his concern that
	the end to end time taken to dispose of cases remains a serious concern . . . both in major and minor cases.
	He recognised that specific issues and unique circumstances affect the timing and length of inquiries, but he identified at least one area that could be improvedthe quality of the papers and evidence supplied by investigators to the prosecuting authority. That is partly about procedure and expertise and partly about resources. The Bill should provide us with the opportunity to examine those matters in more detail, but we will surely also have to examine the way in which resources are allocated within the armed forces justice system to ensure that investigations are carried out appropriately and in good time. The Minister of State's written statement last week on the recent 3 Para trial was welcome.
	Deepcut, in particular, and bullying and harassment more widely in the armed forces have become a growing cause of concern for us all. In our most recent debate on Defence in the UK, that was an important area of focus. The latest available Army Armed Forces Continuous Attitude Survey to April this year is striking in that regard. As I mentioned in that debate, one key set of findings highlighted that 25 per cent. of soldiers had cause to complain about unfair treatment, discrimination, harassment and/or bullyingand more than half of them were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the objectivity and fairness with which the complaint was handled. If ever there were a time to reform the system of redress and grievances, it is now.
	The Bill takes steps in the right direction with the creation of the service complaints panel and other measures, but as the Defence Committee stated in its new reportand as highlighted by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Suttonthe proposals fall some way short of the independent complaints authority that the Defence Committee's predecessor Committee advocated in the Duty of Care report in the last Parliament. It specifically recommended that the commission should have independence from the armed forces and the MOD, power to look into past cases, access to all papers and relevant people and that its recommendations should be binding. Those tests are not met by the Bill as it stands. Much will depend on the secondary legislation to define what exactly a service complaint is and to clarify the time limits and the circumstances under which an independent member of the panel will be appointed.
	The new Committee's report argues that
	it remains very difficult to judge at this stage the full effect of the Government's proposals. But it is clear that the Government has rejected the main principles of our predecessor Committee's recommendationsthe Bill does not provide for a mechanism to deal with complaints that is truly independent of the chain of command.
	The Government must, at the very least, publish the draft regulations that will govern this aspect of the Bill. Otherwise, I hope that we will all want to amend the legislation in Committee.
	Having set out some specific areas of concern about the Bill, which we will hope to explore further in Committee, I want finally to raise a couple of issues that relate to our role as legislators in this place and Parliament's duties to scrutinise the Executive. The Bill runs to more than 240 pages with 375 clauses and 15 schedules. Notwithstanding its bulk, much detail is absent from the provisionson the service complaints panel, for example. That leaves us having to take a great deal on trust. Beyond that, there is perhaps a more fundamental issue.
	This legislation, as the Select Committee points out, will no longer be subjected to annual renewal or the appropriate consideration by Parliament that goes with it. That represents a major change in the powers of the House and one that we do not believe is right. For centuries, Parliament has placed limits on the Executive's rights in regarding the Army and other armed forces in respect of total numbers and the expenditure that goes with it. We appreciate that, these days, the debate often centres on whether or not we have enough soldiers, but the notion of placing limits on the Executive is still extremely important. In this of all eras, the principle of accountability has surely not become an anachronism.
	Other than administrative convenience, the change seems to offer no advantage and there are no new safeguards to give effect to the principles of parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. We will listen carefully to the Minister's response in the wind-up, but hope that the proposal will be rethought in Committee and annual renewal reinstated.
	We demand much of the military personnel who serve this country, face dangers that we can barely understand and take risks with their lives that we can hardly imagine. We have a vast duty of care towards them, which, as a minimum, requires that the service discipline and laws under which they operate are clear and take account of the extraordinary things expected of them. The Bill is the starting point for that process. While there is much in the detail that we will want to scrutinise further and amend in Committee, we support its aims and will support its passage in the House tonight.

Kevan Jones: May I begin by saying how pleased I am to be called to speak on this important Bill for the men and women of our armed forces?
	As has been said, the current military justice system, although effective, dates back to the 1950s. This is a good opportunity not only to modernise the law relating to it but to combine the three services' disciplinary legislation into one. I want to concentrate on just twoaspects of this very lengthy Bill: the proposed introduction of a complaints panel, and clause 371it has already been referred towhich deals with renewal of service disciplinary legislation.
	During the last Parliament, I was honoured to be a member of the Defence Select Committee, and I am honoured to be a member of it in this one. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) has already pointed out that, during the previous Parliament, our Committee undertook a lengthy inquiry into the duty of care of trainees in all three of our services. The inquiry was prompted by serious concerns about the deaths of recruits and trainees in initial training establishments, especially those of four young soldiers at the Princess Royal barracks at Deepcut, Surrey, between 1995 and 2002.
	Following the publication of Surrey police's final report, our Select Committee thought it right not only to undertake an inquiry that could make a significant contribution to the debate on how to improve Ministry of Defence policy on the duty of care of trainees, but to see what we could do to restore public confidence in military training, especially that given by the Army. We took evidence from Deepcut families and from the families of individuals who had died at the Catterick garrison's infantry training centre.

Joan Humble: The Defence Select Committee did indeed produce an excellent report and call for evidence from families beyond Deepcut. Evidence was also taken from the families of those other than trainees, and, given that it was not just trainees who died, does my hon. Friend agree that the duty of care extends beyond the initial training period and throughout the entire time that an individual spends in the armed forces?

Kevan Jones: I agree totally with my hon. Friend, and we did indeed take evidence from those who were no longer trainees, and from the relatives of those who had died and had got past initial training. Although the scope of our inquiry related to the duty of care of trainees, it was evident from the way in which it developed that we also had to examine other areas, and doing so proved invaluable to the final report.
	We also took evidence from the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr. Ingram); from Colonel David Eccles, chief of staff; and from Martin Fuller, director of service personnel policy, service conditions at the Ministry of Defence. It was a long inquiryit took more than a yearand we visited some 15 different training establishments and took evidence from a variety of individuals in all three services.
	The inquiry's recommendations were clear, one of whichthe establishment of an independent military complaints commissionis very important and central to this debate. It was worked on in some detail by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy). He was a member of the Defence Committee at the time but is now in the purdah of the Whips Office, so he cannot take part in this debate. He was keen on this recommendation because a number of his constituents had died while serving in the armed forces, and their families, along with others, led a campaign to highlight the problem of bullying and harassment in the armed forces.
	We envisage a commission that would have the authority not only to investigate complaints but to make recommendations that would be binding on the armed forces. It would be for the commission to decide whether to undertake an investigation, but it would take into account only serious allegations. Importantly, its findings and structure would be independent of the MOD and the chain of command. However, we are not suggesting that it should in any way be a substitute for the chain of command. I should stress, as other Members have stressed, that it should be seen as an independent body that people can approach to ensure that serious grievances are dealt with. I came to the view that establishing an independent commission is important because our armed forces, particularly the Army, have suffered terribly in the past few years as a result not just of the Deepcut allegations, but of other deaths in military service. A truly independent scrutinising mechanism would certainly bolster the public's confidence in the armed forces.
	Not everyone who came before our Select Committee was in favour of such a commission. General Palmer said:
	I think that that is a step too far because there is a chain of command. The Armed Forces are a unique set of peoplethere is no doubt or question about that. They are asked to do things that no one else is asked to do. That respect of the chain of command is vital.
	I agree, but the Defence Committee's proposal would in no way cut across the chain of command. The MOD and the military are by their nature very conservative with a small cin some cases, with a big onebut having such an independent commission could do no harm. Without one, there will be serious question marks over isolated but horrific cases such as those that have led to bullying and, sadly, to young recruits taking their own lives. We have heard about many such cases in the media in the past few years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) pointed out in an intervention, some people have got through initial training, only to take their own lives because of the way in which they were treated in the armed forces.
	I accept that people are criticising me and others for introducing this proposal, but I should point to the example of the UK police force, which, until 2002, was criticised for investigating itself. Since then, the Independent Police Complaints Commission has been created. Importantly, it reports to Parliament, so it is publicly accountable. It is not linked to any Government Department, so its decisions cannot be overruled by politicians; they can be overruled only by a court of law.
	Initial reactions to the IPCC's creation were that it would impact on operational effectiveness and impose an additional bureaucratic burden, and that busy-bodies who knew nothing about day-to-day policing would be telling chief constables what to do. Throughout our inquiry, similar arguments were advanced against having an independent commission in the armed forces. By way of contrast, the senior police officers to whom we spoke during our inquiry expressed the view that the IPCC has benefited the police's working practices and led to greater transparency. The most important thing that the IPCC has done is to bolster the public's confidence that the police are not a law unto themselves, and that if complaints are made by individual members of the public, they will be investigated thoroughly andcruciallyindependently.
	The Government's response to our reportmy hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton mentioned it earliersaid the following about the creation of an independent commission:
	We accept that there is a case for introducing an independent element to the complaints system: there are different models for this, in this country and abroad, and their implications need detailed examination. We will carry out this work ahead of the introduction of the Armed Forces Bill planned for later this year.
	I was a little disappointed to discover what the Bill says about the establishment of a service complaints panel. The panel would consider a service complaintalthough, as has already been said, nobody knows what the definition of a service complaint would be.
	I am also disappointed that the independence of the body is still a little sketchy. As I understand it, the panel would be set up by the Defence Council, which would appoint the panel members, but in exceptional circumstances the Secretary of State could appoint an independent panel member.

Linda Gilroy: My hon. Friend has said how important it is that the public should see the system as independent. Does he agree that we too, when we refer our constituents to such a process, want to be confident that it has an appropriate degree of independence, so that we can assure them that they can have faith in it?

Kevan Jones: I totally agree. The Ministry of Defence and the military have to realise that society has moved on. The idea that, in this day and age, people can investigate themselves and still have credibility, not only with parliamentarians but with the general public, is not acceptable. Unless the system is seen as independent, it will not help to put some of the accusations aside. Some wild accusations have been made against the armed forces, but some of the accusations are right, and some very serious accusations of assault and bullying have not been properly investigated.
	As I read the Bill, the main duties of the panel would be to investigate service complaints, but we have not yet seen the definition of a service complaint, what time limits would apply to such a complaint, or the circumstances in which an independent panel member would be appointed. However, it is clear that the Government have rejected the Defence Committee's recommendation of independence. That saddens me. The Bill does not provide a mechanism or a method for dealing with complaints in what Iand, I think, most peoplewould call truly independent from the chain of command.
	Before the Bill goes any further, it is important that the definitions and other details should be published. That would be useful for the scrutiny that will take place over the coming months. That is important, because it would be helpful to try to put the issues related to Deepcut to bed. We called for retrospection in our report, because that is necessary to ensure that those issues are taken care of.
	More cases involving accusations about bullying leading to suicide are emerging. My hon. Friends may have seen this week's Sunday Mirror, in which, under the headline Deepcut II, there is an article that gives a real sense of questions to be asked about the case of two young recruits, Krystle Cookson and Michael Williams, both of whom committed suicide at the Royal School of Signals base in Blandford. Using the emotive term Deepcut II helps to make it clear that if we are to get satisfactory answers to some of the questions, the idea of the military investigating itself will not be acceptable to those young people's parents, or to the many others who have already been mentioned.
	I hope that the Government will listen to the criticism, because I approach the idea of independence from the point of view that it would improve the Bill. It is also important to secure the public confidence that the system needs. If we go ahead as is now outlined in the Bill, an opportunity will have been missed, and there will not be the added confidence that the public need.
	Clause 371, which relates to the duration and renewal of service discipline legislation, has been mentioned by several Members. It restates the requirement for a five-yearly renewal of the Acts by primary legislation, but does not continue the current practicealready mentioned by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore), who speaks on behalf of the Liberal Democratsof annual renewal by an Order in Council approved by Parliament.
	It is important that we be given an explanation of why the Government want to move to a five-yearly review. As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton said, I cannot for the life of me think why that would be advantageous to the Government, or why Parliament should give up a historic right that has its roots way back in the 17th century.
	For the sake of public confidence in the scrutiny of disciplinary issues relating to our armed forces, this Parliament must have a say, and an opportunity at least once a year to examine the regulations and raise any concerns that it may have. I do not accept that the business managers are so cramped that that has to be dropped off the agenda through lack of parliamentary time. It is so important that parliamentary time should be made for it.
	I welcome the Bill, but I hope that the Government do not miss the great opportunity that they now have to put back the confidence and pride in our armed forces that we should all have. I hope that we can ensure that if cases similar to Deepcut and others arise in future, the independent process that would investigate them would not leave us in the terrible situation that we are in now, with slurs being made against our armed forces, parents and loved ones feeling that they do not have answers to their questions and the general idea that there is something to hide. If we had a proper independent process, a lot of those issues could have been raised within it, rather than having a dripping tap of allegations being madeweekly, it seemsabout other horrendous cases affecting our armed forces.

James Arbuthnot: The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) has thought deeply about these matters, and over several years he has contributed to the Select Committee along the lines that we have just heardand he has got it right. I am exceedingly grateful to the members of the Select Committee for the power of the argument that they bring. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy), who has also spoken, has been a powerful advocate on the Committee, and I feel very lucky to be the Chairman of a group of people who work so hard on these difficult issues.
	It is not an overstatement to say that we have the best armed forces in the world. One of the reasons that is so is that they are not awash with money, and have to think their way through some of the problems that they face. They are also extremely brave and hard-working, highly intelligent and disciplined. They are so disciplined partly because service discipline, which is essential for the success of the armed forces both in peace and in war, is underpinned by the sort of legislation that we have had in this country over many years.
	The system of military law is, however, 50 years old. There is nothing wrong with being 50 years oldI am a little older than that myself. None the less, the services are now very different from what they were like when the system of military law was introduced. In particular, they now participate in joint working, joint planning and joint operations, so to have a system of military discipline that is not joint is no longer justifiable.
	The Bill brings together the systems across the services, which is wholly to be welcomed. I wish, if I may, to embarrass the ministerial team and the Bill team who have put the Bill together by congratulating them on a profoundly necessary, if possibly overdue, Bill. The amount of work that they have put into it over four years has been immense, and they have come up with a good result.
	The Defence Select Committee produced a report last week that built on the report that our predecessor Committee produced earlier. We highlighted two particular issues. We have already heard from two members of the Committee and I hope that at least two   others will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The first matter that our report highlighted was that of an independent complaints mechanism. The Bill will establish a service complaints panel, which modernises the redress of grievance systems.
	Several points have already been made about the Bill's proposals. Although I wish to make one or two pernickety points about the independent complaints mechanism, I do not want to undermine the welcome that I give to the Bill as a whole. Some of the points that have been made about the independence of the tribunal that the Bill will set up bear repeating. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton has asked already why the Secretary of State may appoint an independent person to the service complaints panel, rather than must appoint. Independence has much value, and the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore) articulately encapsulated the arguments for an independent element to the complaints. There is too little detail in the Bill about when the Secretary of State would make a decision about appointing an independent person to the tribunal. We have to rely on the good faith of the Secretary of State. I have no difficulty with that, but it is essential that before the House makes a final decision on the Bill's progress we should have much more detail about the regulations that the Secretary of State intends to introduce on when an independent person is appointed.
	The whole process does not go far enough. The hon. Lady and the hon. Member for North Durham were right to express their disappointment that we do not have a wholly independent system. A previous Defence Committee called for a proactive body that could, for example, commission research into trends that might cause difficulties for the armed services and then proactively examine those trends. The proposal for a service complaints panel makes no allowance for that to happen.
	The previous Committee also raised the issue of retrospection and past cases. We have to face the fact that there are boils to be lanced. The Deepcut boil has not been lanced and will not be lanced by the proposals in the Bill, but it is essential that people have confidence in the reputation of the Ministry of Defence. The hon. Member for North Durham spoke about the need to have confidence in the Ministry of Defence and he pointed out how now that the police had the Independent Police Complaints Commission they were no longer seen as a law unto themselves. The Ministry of Defence is seen that way at the moment. Everybody knows that my view of the decisions on the Mull of Kintyre Chinook crash leads me to believe that the Ministry of Defence is seen to be a law unto itself. There is much to be said for the introduction of a degree of openness and independence, which would build up the Ministry's reputation and self-confidence. The Ministry of Defence would have nothing to lose from that and everything to gain.
	Another issue that has been raised by the Defence Committee was that of annual renewal. The quinquennial review will be retained, and that is good, but under the Bill the annual secondary legislation will go. I sense that Ministers are open-minded about that. The Secretary of State for Defence has written to the Committee to say that it is not the sort of ditch in which he would wish to die. I was also delighted by what my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton said about this issue. An annual consideration of the legislation that underpins the discipline of our armed forces is an essential part of parliamentary scrutiny. The Defence Committee calls on the Minister not to press that change and I hope that he will be able to give us some indication later this evening on that point.
	I wish to touch on one or two other issues briefly. The Ministry of Defence does not accept the previous Committee's recommendations about boards of inquiry and, for example, the parents of dead servicemen and women having the right to attend them. The Ministry of Defence says that it is worried that the candour of the evidence could be compromised if a witness sees the deceased person's parents in the room. I understand that argument, but it is one that has to be faced in civilian courts, week in and week out. It does not seem to have a serious impact on the quality of the evidence or the behaviour of the judiciary in civilian courts. Perhaps the parents of dead servicemen or women should not have the right to attend boards of inquiry. I know that tribunals may allow the relations or other people with an interest to attend, and I hope that the possibility is exercised with great humanity. I ask the Minister to put himself in the position of a parent whose child has been killed in an accident but who is not allowed to attend the inquiry into the accident.

Kevan Jones: When the previous Committee took evidence on that point from parents, the problem was not only that they were not allowed to attend. In many cases, they were not notified of the outcome of, or given notes from, the inquiries. If we are to shine the spotlight on the darker crevices of the MOD, it is vital that parents are allowed the dignity of trying to find out what happened to their children.

James Arbuthnot: That is unarguable.
	My next and rather different point concerns offences at sea. The Minister may be able to confirm the point when he winds up, but I understand that harmonisation of the disciplinary procedures will lead to a 50 per cent. increase in the number of naval cases being heard by court martial, as opposed to being dealt with summarily. Is that the case, and will it cause difficulties to the armed forces in terms of operational effectiveness? Is it right that the Bill does not cover administrative action, which is the lowest level of disciplinary process? If that is right, is that also to be harmonised across the services?
	I have spoken for long enough, but I have a few points about the procedures that the House will follow when examining the Bill. When the Secretary of State opened the debate he said that one of the great strengths of the Bill was its hybrid nature. He was right. The ad hoc Select Committee will be able to take evidence and examine the Bill line by line, for the first time in public. That follows the recommendation of the previous Defence Committee.
	It is right that the detailed wording of the Bill should be examined in public. In fact, all legislation should be examined in that way. Committees should be able to take evidence about the legislation on the wording of which they are about to decide. It is not simply a good method of doing business; it should be a role model for the way we do business in the rest of the legislative process.
	I very much hope that there will be a good representation of members of the Defence Committee on the ad hoc Select Committee, and I look to the Committee of Selection to achieve that. That will mean that the Select Committee is very strong indeed.

Joan Humble: I am especially pleased to follow so many considered contributions from colleagues on both sides of the House. This is an important debate. Although I am not a member of the Defence Committee, I, like other Members, want to refer to its excellent reports, which should underpin much of our debate.
	I welcome the Secretary of State's intention to modernise the law on the armed forces and to bring it into line with the requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998. The Bill is built on the key principle of fairnessto be fair and to be seen to be fair. It is sensible to update our procedures. As has already been said, our armed forces do difficult tasks in increasingly difficult circumstances and I hope that the Bill will give them some reassurance as they undertake those tasks.
	We all agree that our armed forces do excellent work and are highly regarded. They need the proper investigative procedures outlined in the Bill. The role of the commanding officer is important. Under the Bill, commanding officers have a duty to ensure that matters drawn to their attention are properly investigated. We need to extend that role in other elements of the Bill.
	I want to speak from the standpoint of parents whose children have died in peacetime while serving in the armed forces. When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence sums up, will he clarify how the concerns of those parents can be addressed in the legislation?
	My constituent, Lance Corporal Derek McGregor, died in July 2003 at Catterick barracks. His family are waiting for a date to be set for the coroner's inquest, so I cannot comment on the circumstances of his death. I can say only that when I met Derek's father, Joe McGregor, and the parents of children who lost their lives at Deepcut and at other barracks in England, Northern Ireland and overseas, the same phrases cropped up time and time again:
	You have to understandthe Army is a law unto itself
	and
	You have to understand the Army is so arrogantthey think they can get away with murder.
	Those are not my words, but those of parents who buried their children in tragic circumstances.

Pete Wishart: I congratulate the hon. Lady on the assiduous way in which she chairs the Deepcut and Beyond families group. I represent the Collinson family whose son was also killed at Deepcut barracks. Does she agree that it is not only families and those of us interested in the issue but the public who are concerned? The general public expect that public services such as the Army are given the closest possible scrutiny. That is why there is great public concern about things such as the events at the marine camp reported recently. The public are owed proper scrutiny of what is happening in the armed forces.

Joan Humble: The hon. Gentleman is right. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) also drew attention to recent newspaper articles. When we are recruiting young people to serve in our armed forces in difficult circumstances, they and their parents need assurances about that essential duty of care. If they do not receive them, it will, without a shadow of doubt, affect recruitment and morale. We need to address that issue and the Bill is the ideal opportunity.
	Modernisation of the armed forces means removing the stain of Deepcut. It was once a rural location in leafy SurreyI have been therebut is now a byword for bullying and cover-up. We must stop that. Modernisation means openness and accountability. Modernisation means that when a fatal incident occurs the bereaved family are entitled to learn the truth. They are entitled to expect justice and to believe that lessons will be learned, to avoid such deaths in the future.
	I listened with interest to the remarks of the new Chairman of the Select Committee about informing families. They should be involved in inquiries, because all they experience is secrecy. Only limited information is given to them and they often feel that even that has to be dragged out, and the process goes on for months. When my constituent Joe McGregor and members of other families gave evidence to the previous Select Committee, they described how the visiting officer who came to tell them of the death of their child was often oblivious to their needs. The officer did not discuss with the families what had happened. They often had to ask for the return of personal possessions, which were often returned in a way that caused them even greater distress. Such issues should be addressed by the Committee.

Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that, even when accidents occur or when individuals die tragically in accidents, the culture of secrecy that she describes leads to parents and loved ones thinking that the MOD is covering something up?

Joan Humble: My hon. Friend is right. That is why the Deepcut and Beyond group is still asking for a public inquiry. Having tried and triedfor many years, in some casesto get answers from the Army and the armed forces in general, the families feel that an independent inquiry is the only way to meet their calls for truth, justice and change.
	There have been at least five internal military inquiries, as well as two police investigations costing at least 1 million, another police force investigating the integrity of the first, a Select Committee inquiry, a review conducted behind closed doors by Nicholas Blake QC and another inquest by the Queen's coroner. How many more investigations are we to have? To date, every inquiry has been limited by its terms of reference. None had powers sufficient to fulfil the requirements for the necessary public investigation of non-combat deaths. None had the weight and stature to make recommendations for lasting change and none had the authority to restore public confidence.

Linda Gilroy: On the subject of public confidence, does my hon. Friend agree that families want not only to see justice done, but to be sure that things are put right for the futureno doubt, other people who have lost loved ones want that as welland that only by greater openness and independence can they be sure of that?

Joan Humble: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I believe that the Bill, as drafted, will miss a valuable opportunity to address the vital issue of accountability. I hope that special attention will be given to accountability in the discussions that will take place after the debate.
	I will certainly listen very carefully to the Minister's response to hear whether he has reflected further on Surrey police's recommendation that the armed services should consider the value of establishing a mechanism for independent oversight, which was developed and advanced by the Defence Committee in its inquiry into the duty of care. The model advanced by the Select Committee was that of the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Irelanda model that, thanks to the skill and leadership of the ombudsman, Mrs. Nuala O'Loan, is regarded universally as a world leader in police accountability.
	The Deepcut and Beyond families group supports the proposal for an ombudsman or independent complaints commissioner. The group especially welcomes the Defence Committee's recommendation that any such ombudsman should have the power retrospectively to look at cases on which many families did not get answersthey still have not had answers. The group can also see the merit of an independent inspectorate along the lines of Her Majesty's inspectorates of police and prisons.
	Another proposal, which is particularly relevant while the Army continues to recruit under-18s to military service, is to create a system of lay visitors panels, which could carry out announced or unannounced visits to barracks to interview and monitor the well-being of service personnel.
	Another issue that I wish to raise is impunity for armed service personnel. We rightly deplore those dictatorial regimes in which security personnel can do no wrong, where brutality, rape and murder during an armed conflict or behind the closed doors of the military barracks goes unpunished. In such regimes, even a conviction in a civilian court may be regarded as a technical matter and temporary inconvenience. The soldier concerned may be welcomed back into the army and even promoted.
	It has, as far as I am aware, always been the case for the British Armythis is set out in the Queen's regulationsthat in the event of a serious misdemeanour resulting in conviction and sentence to imprisonment by a civil court, the soldier would be automatically discharged. When discussing the Bill with some members of the Deepcut and Beyond group, they drew to my attention two cases in which the Army has sought exemption from that rule on the grounds that the conviction did not bring into doubt the integrity of the soldiers concerned. I am informed that one case involved the conviction of two soldiers for murder. Another case involved the conviction of a soldier for manslaughter by gross negligence. If soldiers can be routinely dismissed for the possession of class B drugs, I can find no rationale to allow those who are found responsible for the death of civilians or their fellow soldiers to remain.

Julian Brazier: The second case relates to Corporal Clegg. The hon. Lady appears not to take account of the fact that, from time to time, it is the soldier's job to kill people. The court ruled in that casethis was eventually quashed a long time later by a second appealthat in a split-second decision he had wrongfully killed someone. That does not impinge on his integrity.

Joan Humble: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Of course, we are discussing the armed forces, but similar things can be said about the police. In no way do I underestimate the split-second decisions that soldiers must make. Nevertheless, on one hand some of the families whose children have died in the armed forces see action that is veiled in secrecythey cannot get answers about their children from the Armyand on the other they see the Army defending soldiers in circumstances where they may have doubts about the action that was taken. I am not making any remark about the particulars of individual cases; I am simply drawing to the attention of the House the concerns of families about what might be seen as two rulesone for them and one for other peopleand we must have accountability, consistency, fairness and openness in all those decisions.

Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a big difference between actions on the battlefield or, for example, in Northern Ireland, and the actions of individuals who are in charge of soldiers that relate to bullying that subsequently, in some very tragic cases, leads to those individuals taking their own lives?

Joan Humble: My hon. Friend is right, but I should like to ask the Minister whether, if the Bill is passed, a soldier convicted of the abuse of power, of bullying, of rape or of murder will no longer be subject to automatic discharge. Will they maintain their rank and position in the armed services throughout their prison sentence? If that is the case, it would certainly cause a lot of concern to many of the families whose children have diedoften, they believe, as a result of bullying in the armed forces.
	The purpose of the Bill is to update and streamline legislation. It must therefore be fair and it must offer transparency. Without that, the good work that so many of our soldiers do could be undermined. I regularly meet current and former members of the King's Own Royal Border Regiment and the Queen's Lancashire Regiment. Some time ago, I met representatives of the Royal Green Jackets, who are based not too far from Blackpool, and they told me about the excellent work that they had done as peacekeepers in Sierra Leone.
	I know of the very good work that is undertaken, but the Bill is an opportunity to reassure military personnel, their families and the general public that, when things go wrong, they will be investigated. Usually, things go right. Members of Parliament do not get people queuing up at our advice surgeries to tell us that everything is going swimmingly; they queue up to tell us when things go wrong. Our responsibility is to ensure that we have an appropriate response when things go wrong. The Bill is our opportunity to do that, so I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will reconsider the Defence Committee's reports on independent oversight, because that will give many of the reassurances that many families need.

Robert Key: I congratulate the Secretary of State on winning the game of musical chairs that has been running for about 20 years. He is the final Secretary of State to sit on the chair when all his predecessors have been denied one. It falls to him to win the elusive prize of achieving a tri-service Act. That is purple prose in any language. I also congratulate the Bill team at the Ministry of Defence and the parliamentary draftsmen and Treasury counsel on what has been a mammoth operation. With previous Armed Forces Bills, we have heard some quite extraordinary reasonsor should I say excuses?wheeled out about why progress has not been made. That has never been the fault of the Ministry of Defence, which has always seen the merit of updating service law. So I am absolutely delighted that the Bill has appeared before the House, and I warmly support it.
	I also support the legislative process that we are about to use. I believe strongly in the value of pre-legislative scrutiny, for the reasons that Members on both sides of the House have already mentioned. I have argued for 15 years that we should use such a process for other legislation because it has enormous advantages, not least because it empowers the citizens of this country to have a direct input in the way in which policy making becomes law. That must be good for democracy, and it might even encourage people to vote.
	There is no part of my constituency that is not directed affected by the Ministry of Defence and the military and civilian people whom it employs. It contains Land Command, Larkhill, Bulford, Porton Down, Winterbourne Gunner, Boscombe Down, Salisbury plain training area, Westdown camp and Rollestone camp. There are low-flying zones and artillery ranges, and more than 11,000 Ministry of Defence employees. The Bill is thus important to many of my constituents.
	I agree with the conclusions of the Defence Committee in its first report of the current Session. It is important that the Bill establishes
	an independent voice in the consideration of complaints,
	but that is not in itself sufficient. I agree with the Committee, of which I have the honour to be a member a second time around, that we should
	urge the Government to table amendments to strengthen the degree of independence
	of the complaints system in the ArmyI shall come back to that in a moment.
	I agree with the Committee's recommendation that we should encourage the Ministry of Defence to publish
	secondary legislation relating to the Armed Forces Bill, in draft
	if that is all that can be achievedto inform our scrutiny of the Bill. We are told throughout the Bill that the Secretary of State will make regulations on almost all matters of detail. We need sight of such regulations, and so do the public.
	I also endorse what every person who has mentioned the matter has said so far: there is a need for annual review of service discipline legislation. I understand Ministers being persuadedprobably by the Treasurythat it would save a bob or two if we did not need to have this performance. I can understand the Whips Office saying, You don't really need yet more legislation, do you? Surely once every five years will do. I hope that Defence Ministers will be able to win the day because I suspect that the idea did not come from them. After all, the House of Commons has reviewed the matter every year since 1689. Parliament should not yield willingly such an important check on the power of the Executive.

Gerald Howarth: May I reinforce the point that my hon. Friend is making? Under the Bill of Rights 1689, no standing Army may be maintained without the authority of Parliament. Is it not the case that this is the modern procedure by which the Bill of Rights is respected by the House, and that removing the provision would thus have serious constitutional implications?

Robert Key: My hon. Friend is entirely right.

John Reid: I agree entirely with the principle under the Bill of Rights that every Parliament should reauthorise that the standing Army should be maintained. That is why we have agreed that there should be a Bill each Parliament. The question is whether we need to legislate every year. The hon. Gentleman is half right because the suggestion did not originate in the Ministry of Defence, but he was wrong to say that it was the responsibility of the Treasury or the Whips Office.

Robert Key: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. In that case, we shall have great fun working out whodunit.
	Like the Secretary of State, I served on each of the previous two Armed Forces Bills. He will recall that those Bills turned out to be Christmas-tree Bills, not only because their Second Readings occurred just before Christmas, but because the original Bill became festooned with more and more decorations. I thus wish to ask Defence Ministers to explain several aspects of the Christmas-tree nature of this Bill.
	Clause 35 is titled Annoyance by flying. The military has to undertake low flying and MPs have to be sympathetic about the situation in their constituencies each year. However, neither the clause nor the explanatory notes gives anything like a convincing reason why we need to put yet another obstacle in the way of military pilots. The clause says that it is an offence if a person subject to service law flies an aircraft so as to annoy or be likely to annoy anyone, unless he can reasonably avoid flying in such a way. Come on, Mr. Deputy Speakeris this a military matter, or is it not? We are talking about not recreational flying from grass strips, but fast jets, Chinooks and other kinds of aircraft and helicopters that are on military business. If I am fortunate enough to be chosen to serve on the Committee that considers the Bill, I shall be pressing Ministers for an answer to why we need clause 35.
	Clause 42 is entitled Criminal conduct. The Secretary of State touched on an important matter in his opening comments. It is important for people to realise that the Bill does not address torture or any other criminal offence that is not necessarily a military offence. Clause 42 points out that anything that is a criminal offence in British law is an offence if it is carried out by members of HM forces, wherever they are in the worldthat is my understanding of the clause, but perhaps the Minister will clarify that. That is important because it means that wherever in the world British service personnel are, they will always occupy the moral high ground when it comes to making decisions of life or death. It will also apply to the behaviour of members of HM forces, whether they are in Ayia Napa or elsewhere in Cyprus. We did not cover ourselves in glory in Cyprus 40 or 50 years ago and did not always occupy the moral high ground. I do not think that we did that with internment in Northern Ireland, or that the Americans have done so in Guantanamo Bay. We want to maintain the honour, courage and bravery of Her Majesty's forces and their personnel.
	Clause 51 relates to the jurisdiction of the service civilian court. It is important because many people do not realise that the Bill applies to civilians who are subject to service discipline. Indeed, it can apply to the children of serving personnel overseas. It applies to contractors and service families, so the jurisdiction of the service civilian court is important. I will want to probe in Committee to find out exactly how the situation changes under the Bill.

James Arbuthnot: While my hon. Friend is in a gap between clauses, may I take him back to a point that he made about clause 35 and the annoyance caused by low flying? I, too, was worried about the clause when I first read it. I am worried that if the Ministry of Defence receives several complaints about low flying from people in a certain area, that might, owing to criminal offence under the clause, give rise to judicial review. People might thus take the Ministry of Defence to court to prevent low flying, although that is essential, as my hon. Friend said.

Robert Key: The analysis of my right hon. Friend is wholly right.
	Clause 83 introduces a strange little power: the power of a judge advocate to authorise entry and search. Clause 84 provides definitions for the purposes of clause 83. The matter is important. A point was raised during the consideration of the last Armed Forces Bill following the experience of journalists who were accused of undertaking various underhand acts in the course of their journalistic activities. I recall that there was a case involving a house that was entered and searched by Ministry of Defence police, although no one seemed to know whether they should have been there. I suspect that the measures are designed to tidy up the situation. It is all very strange.
	Subsection (4) refers to the terms
	 'Items subject to legal privilege', 'excluded material' and 'special procedure material' .
	We are told that these definitions have the same effect as those in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. An example of excluded material includes
	personal records (such as medical records and journalist's materials) if held in confidence. An example of special procedure material is a journalist's material not held in confidence.
	That has got the journalist both ways.
	I seek clarification as I want to find out what is going on. I suspect that all sensible journalists will have gone off to bed or down to the pub, so they will not have heard me tonight. However, if they catch up with clause 84, they might have something to say.
	I certainly support clause 99(6). It deals with limitations on custody without charge. I wonder whether the Prime Minister knew that the clause would be put into the Bill. There is a 48-hour maximum allowed in the context of limitations on custody without charge. Custody after charge is limited to eight days. That sounds pretty sensible to me and I am happy to support the provision.
	I move on to clause 155(4)(d), which is the constitution of the court martial. This is fascinating. A chaplain cannot be a member of a court martial. Does that apply to other faithsfor example, to religious personnel, to Sikhs and to Muslims? We are delighted that the Minister has invited them to perform some of the roles that traditionally the Christian chaplains have carried out. I want to know why chaplains are specifically mentioned and whether that applies also to chaplains of other faiths.
	The hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) made a passionate speech. I understood so much of what she was getting at. I would like to know one day what she thinks about clause 162, dealing with courts martial rules. An interesting argument arises. I have been to a few courts martial, sometimes to see constituents who have been involved in them. One of the problems is the mumbo-jumbo. For example, there were swords on tables pointing in particular directions and there was the question of whether headgear should be worn. All these things that have grown up over hundreds of years of military tradition are no more than mumbo-jumbo to ordinary people. I suspect that if some of the mumbo-jumbo was taken out of the process, the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood and her constituents would be reassured and their confidence would grow. Perhaps it is a similar argument to whether judges should wear full-bottomed wigs and so on.

Joan Humble: The families that I meet would welcome just being present and just being involved. They could probably cope with mumbo-jumbo. They are interested in getting answers and getting the truth.

Robert Key: No one could possibly disagree with that. I am sure that that is an issue that the hon. Lady will pursue whatever happens.
	My penultimate question lies with clause 332, that is headed, Composition and procedure of service complaints panels. Can an independent memberand I generally agree with this, although it has perhaps not gone far enoughbe a naval chaplain? We do not know, and it might be thought that it does not matter. We do not know because so much will be introduced by regulation by the Secretary of State. We know that an Army chaplain cannot be an independent member of a complaints panel because that is provided for in the clause. However, clause 361 provides that naval chaplains, as explained in paragraph 849 of the explanatory notes, have no rank. So if a naval chaplain has no rank, is he a member of the armed forces? So can he or can he not be an independent member of a complaints panel? This is a detail, but the sort of detail that will somewhere rear its head.

Kevan Jones: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, but the Deepcut families and others are seeking true independence. These are people who have no connection with any of the armed forces.

Robert Key: Up to a point, Lord Copper. There are people in the armed forces who really value the presence of chaplains in the community. Young members of the forces perhaps tend to be vulnerable and think that they may be being bullied, or are being bullied, and they might turn to a chaplain. The role of chaplains is crucialand I mean chaplains of various faiths. If a naval chaplain is allowed to be a member of an independent tribunal, that might be important for the person involved and as a principle or precedent for the role of chaplaincy in the armed forces.

Andrew MacKinlay: I am focusing on the hon. Gentleman's point. Surely clause 361 covers it. Does it not effectively extend to a naval chaplain the rank of officer? That is the way in which I read it. Ipso facto, he or she would have parity of treatment with an Army officer.

Robert Key: There are other circumstances where only certain sorts of non-commissioned officers can perform certain roles, as set out in the Bill. I do not know, and that is why I ask the question in all innocence. However, it is something that we will need to discuss in Committee.
	Perhaps we need to look further afield if we are concerned about the true independence of the bodies that we are discussing. There is other experience. For example, there is the inspector general of the Australian defence force. It is an interesting example because his role is to
	identify systemic causes of injustice within the military system of justice covering,
	not only
	Australian Defence Force discipline and defence inquiries.
	We might look further at the complaint resolution agency in the Australian defence force, which has a particular role if the commanding officer
	declines to grant the redress sought or does not have the authority.
	He can request that the redress of grievance
	is referred to the relevant service chief
	and then to the CRA. That is an important example. So is the defence force ombudsman of the Australian defence force. The Canadian military police have a complaints commission which really is independent, so perhaps we should consider its role.

Kevan Jones: I agree with the example that the hon. Gentleman gives of the Australian defence force. Does he agree that when there is a degree of independence from the chain of command that has not affected in any way the operational capabilities of the armed forces?

Robert Key: Of course the hon. Gentleman is right about operational capabilities, but it does give confidence when things go wrong.
	My final question relates to clause 343, which is headed Exemption from tolls and charges. It is an extraordinary provision. I speak as a former Minister who was responsible for roads. The clause exempts from tolls and charges bridges, congestion charges, toll roads, road pricing and so on a vehicle that
	belongs to any of Her Majesty's Forces.
	Does that mean that Corporal Jones, going into Amesbury for a pint on Saturday night, will be exempt from paying a chargenot that there is a charge between Bullford barracks and Amesbury? If there were, what would be the position? I do not know because the provision is so broad. Neither the explanatory notes nor the terms of the clause help very much. We are told that no charge
	is payable in respect of a vehicle
	that is
	in use for the purposes of any of those forces.
	There are many loopholes there.
	We are talking about the best armed forces in the world. We are talking about a force that is brave and disciplined, based on hundreds of years of tradition and hundreds of years of keeping faith with the people of our islands and the peoples of the Commonwealth and beyond. It is all a matter of trust, and therefore it is a matter of justice. These things work both ways and that is what the Bill is all about. I warmly support it.

David Borrow: I am grateful for being called to contribute to this debate. I apologise to the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) for missing most of their contributions as a result of parliamentary business. The two statements affected my timetable this afternoon.
	I welcome the Bill and the mechanism for scrutinising and eventually debating it. Several Parliaments use a similar mechanismSelect Committee scrutiny takes place first, then the people involved in that process engage in detailed clause-by-clause scrutiny. If we used that mechanism for more legislation, we would achieve more informed debate in Standing Committee than is traditionally the case. I welcome the way in which the Bill brings together the disciplinary activities of all three services. I was interested to see how the three chains of command have been brought together and to learn what will be dealt with by summary action and what by court martial. Different charges will be dovetailed together.
	The right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) pointed out the effect on naval discipline of the introduction of many more courts martial and the subsequent increase in work load. In Committee, we must look in detail at individual offences and how they will be brought together across the services. I do not wish to judge at this stage whether the Bill, as a result of the consultation with the three services, has got it right. Detailed scrutiny will be required in Committee to ensure that punishments and the way in which each offence is dealt are appropriate. One of our major tasks in Committee will be to ensure that the work behind the scenes to pull the three codes together has been done correctly.
	The Bill, together with my eight and a half years' experience as an MP, convinces me about the extent to which the armed forces are separate from the rest of us. We accept that they have a different code of discipline and are subject to different mechanisms in the treatment of complaints and grievances. Both concerns are at the heart of the Bill and we must consider whether we are moving from the traditional procedures of the armed forces towards what is acceptable in civvy street. I have spent two periods with the Army as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme and I have dealt with a great deal of case work that involved the Ministry of Defence. Throughout, I found it incredibly difficult to persuade the armed forces to accept that a complaint is legitimate. My office tells me that the most difficult Department to deal with is the MOD. It is hard to secure any movement at all from it whenever we make a complaint on behalf of a constituent. That ties in with my off-the-cuff chats with service personnel in previous years, so I am worried about whether we have achieved the right balance of independence for the complaints and grievance system.
	It is not simply the main issuesthe Deepcut inquiry, bullying and so onthat have concerned Members over the past few years, as the problem extends all the way down the line. Service personnel cannot join a trade union, so we cannot expect them to use the normal grievance procedures used by people who go to the office at 9 am and leave it at 5 pm. In civvy street, we can go and have a grumble, and there are ways of dealing with such problems. There is a chain of command for service personnel that means that we cannot expect complaints to be dealt with in the same way. Sometimes, the military go too far the other way, and it is easy for them to ignore legitimate complaints because of the sanctity of the chain of command.
	On the major issues, I was not a member of the Select Committee that considered the previous Armed Forces Bill, but its views on the insufficiency of the mechanism that has been put in place for the independent consideration of complaints were reaffirmed by the current Select Committee. We should seriously consider expanding and enlarging that mechanism, but we must not lose sight of the larger issue so that those young men and women who join the services and believe that they are treated unfairly have a mechanism that will ensure that their complaints, even if relatively trivial, are dealt with legitimately. I often have the impression that it is easy to ignore such complaints and hide behind the chain of command.
	The same problems that make it difficult to approach the civilian model when dealing with grievances and complaints apply to disciplinary and judicial procedures. It is a different world for someone who is on operations in Iraq or Afghanistan having to make split-second decisions under pressure and being scrutinised after the event for decisions made in stressful situations. Traditionally, people in the armed forces who know those pressures have made the decision about whether to prosecute and what are the appropriate procedures to use. In the past few years, however, military personnel have moved towards civilian standards regarding the acceptability of conduct. The hon. Member for Woodspring referred to that development when he asked whether we should pursue an idealistic or pragmatic approach to discipline.
	A couple of incidents involving my local regiment, the Queen's Lancashire Regiment, are of concern. I am not questioning whether the right decisions were made, but in the Mackenzie case, the newspaper publication of fraudulent photographs put our armed forces at risk. The case has been dropped, but it is not clear whether or not anyone else will be pursued. At the same time, Colonel Mendonca of that regiment is being pursued, not under traditional military regulations, but under the International Criminal Court Act 2001. The case will be decided three years after the initial incident. Both cases, together with several others have affected morale in the services and whether service personnel believe that they are treated properly and are subject to a duty of care.
	When the Bill is enacted, we should aim to ensure that military personnel have confidence in the process whereby they are judged and in how prosecutions are conducted. Bringing the prosecution services of the three services together, perhaps with additional resources, may result in a better quality process. The morale of the armed forces has taken a knock in recent years because of the confusion about whether they should be subject to civilian or military procedure. We should be clear about which approach we are taking. If we expect discipline to reflect the fact that service personnel are members of the military their complaints and grievance procedure should run parallel to that expectation. In the Bill, we need to achieve a balance between both those tracks, so that both are accepted as being fair and reasonable and adequately reflect the fact that servicemen and women operating in a 21st-century military service may have different standards and expectations from those of a 19th or mid-20th-century military.
	If the Bill is supposed to update military disciplinary and grievance procedures from half a century ago, we need to reflect the modern aspirations and expectations of young men and women who serve in our military today. If we can do that, we can do a good job. That is what I hope will come out of the process. I am not an expert and do not know what that will properly involve, but I ask myself whether, at the end of the process, I will be able to sit in front of young servicemen and women and be sure that we have an updated, modern disciplinary, grievance and complaints procedure in which they can have confidence. If we can do that, the House will have done a good job.
	My final brief comment is about whether the legislation should be renewed annually. I remain to be convincednothing that I have read or heard or that has been said in the Chamber so far this evening has convinced methat there is any case to move away from annual renewals. I look forward with interest to the debates and contributions from Ministers in the weeks ahead.

Julian Brazier: In reply to the Secretary of State's justified remark about my absence, may I make it clear that I left the House because I was summoned to the office of my new party leader? There is no announcement resulting from that; I am staying in the same position. I wish to make it clear that no disrespect to the Secretary of State was intended by my leaving a few minutes after an intervention on him.
	I take a gloomier view of the Bill than the last few speakers, including two distinguished colleagues of mine. As we debate service discipline, it is important to remember that the grinding overstretch resulting from the four major entanglements into which the Government have taken our armed forces and from cuts in their manpower has led to an exodus of experienced people from the armed services, as well as a rise in the services divorce rate. The men and women who will be subject to the measure that we are debating have seen their pensions attacked when the whole of the rest of the public sector have seen their pensions protected. They have seen the burden of proof raised for compensation claims for injuries incurred on service. They have been infuriated by the Saville inquiry and the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill.
	Behind the Armed Forces Bill lies an ugly trend towards civilianising the military world. Military life, with its risks, hardships and requirements for stern discipline simply is not comparable to that of civilians. I listened with interest to the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow). He will not mind my saying that he ended on the fence. I share many of the concerns that he expressed. The military world is not the same as the civilian world.
	It would be wrong to disparage the entire Bill. I understand why we are not opposing Second Reading and there are a number of welcome elements. The service complaints panel strikes the right balance in dealing with issues such as Deepcut. We must not have another Deepcut. I agree with my colleagues' comments on the tri-service aspect as servicemen increasingly operate in joint units, although there is a question about some of the special requirements of some naval commanding officers, particularly submarine commanders.
	I welcome the modest expansion of powers for the CO in the Army and Air Force regarding summary hearings for lesser offences. It is that aspect that makes other parts of the Bill so hard to understand. Evidently the Government comprehend, at least in part, the importance of the CO and such powers for maintaining not only discipline, but a sense of continuity and community. There is a unique bond between a commanding officer and his men. The strength of that bond underpins the remarkable feats that the House has come to expect of our servicemen and women. As Lord Boyce said on 14 July in the Lords debate on the legality of the chain of command,
	we interfere with the unique linkage between the commanding officer and his men at our peril.[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 July 2005; Vol. 673, c. 1235.]
	Why limit that trust now by removing all the powers relating to more serious crimes? We all know why. The Secretary of State made it clear in his speechthe case of Trooper Williams. It is important to remember that that was at a time when there had been a small number of allegations concerning prisoners. It related to something that had happened not in a prison or in a camp, but at a checkpoint in a dangerous area and involved a member of the enemy who was found to be carrying ammunition. The case was initially dismissed by the CO on advice from the Army legal service because of a lack of evidence. The director of the Army legal service then referred it to the Attorney-General for possible trial in the civil courts. After protracted wrangling, the case was dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service following a long delay because of a lack of evidence.
	The provenance of the case is disturbing, to say the least. In his statement on 7 April, the Attorney-General referred to the fact that
	the commanding officer had 'dismissed' the charges against Trooper Williams
	and continued:
	The matter could not, because of the actions of the commanding officer, be dealt with by way of court martial. It was referred to me to consider further action.[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 April 2005; Vol. 671, c. WS 92.]
	That is in the context of recent remarks by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, who I see in his place. He stated:
	Discipline is essential, and we depend on service law to enforce it.
	A fighting force that cannot obey orders and display self-control in peacetime will not stand up to the much more demanding circumstances of operations.
	In a sense, that is platitudinous. We would all agree with that statement. Did the Minister feel that he had to say it? Does he believe that British troops are less disciplined than other armies in any of the theatres in which they have recently operated? There are indeed a very small number of disturbing incidents involving prisoners in Iraq, but overall I believe our forces are the best disciplined in the world. Yet today they face a brutal enemy and an unprecedented blizzard of investigations and prosecutionsprosecutions brought about by Government policy and in which, in a number of cases, the Attorney-General has played a crucial role from the safety of his office in Whitehall.
	The Williams case was a protracted, distressing and shameful assault on the reputation of a gallant soldier. It did not happen because his CO had the power to pursue the case but did not do so. It happened because the opinion of the CO was brushed aside in what many in the Army believerightlywas a political desire to charge and convict someone amidst all the allegations of human rights abuses in Iraq. Now the Government want to remove the authoritative opinion of the commanding officer, the man on the spot who shares the risks with his soldiers, the man who got it right in the Williams case, and hand that power to the Army legal service.
	The Government have learned the wrong lesson. They are keeping the bath water and throwing the baby to the wolves. On 24 MarchI quoted this in an intervention on the Secretary of Statethe Adjutant-General wrote to the Chief of the General Staff and CIC Land, copying his letter to the brigadier, to inform them that he intended to write to the director of Army legal services to ask him to draw the case to the attention of the Attorney-General for the purpose of having resort to his jurisdiction. In that letter, the reason given was:
	With current legal, political and ginger group interest in the deaths of Iraqi civilians during operation telic: our investigation and subsequent failure to offer for prosecution could become a cause celebre for pressure groups, and a significant threat to the military justice system.
	I have no intention of attacking a senior serving officer, but if I were a serving soldier, my blood would run cold if I heard that remark, which was first unearthed by Lord Campbell in July in another place.
	The situation is being compounded by the International Criminal Court Act 2001, which my party rightly voted against. All hon. Members oppose war crimes, but the wording of the 2001 Act is so vague that senior officers can be held accountable for actions of which they had no knowledge, simply on the ground that they might have taken steps to prevent them. I do not intend to try your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by repeating my recent speech on the workings of the 2001 Act in relation to the case of Colonel Mendonca, which is now sub judice.
	I ask the courts to take into account the point that the 2001 Act works against the chain of command. The long-standing leadership principle in the British Army is that commanders delegate authority to their sub-commanders, let them get on with the job, trust them whenever they can and support them if things go wrong and they believe that their sub-commanders have behaved reasonably, which takes considerable moral courage. The ghastly news that General Peter Wall, who is a fine soldier by any standards, is being investigated for supporting one of his subordinates in such a situation under very difficult circumstances underlines the ghastliness of the 2001 Act.
	Turning to the recent case against paratroopers from the 3rd Battalion of the Parachute Regiment, the case against seven members and ex-members was dropped, because the judge had concerns about the adequacy of the evidence and the integrity of the Iraqi witnessesreportedly, the case cost 10 million of taxpayers' money. In the Lords debate on the legality of the chain of command, Lord Inge highlighted the fact that British lawyers were hawking no-win, no-fee arrangements around Iraq, promising taxpayers' money to those who would bear witness against British soldiers. So much for the deal, which the hon. Member for South Ribble has rightly emphasised, on the duty of care that we owe to our soldiers.
	Why would the Government want to create a new legal apparatus and remove the power of responsible commanding officers at the same time as they are putting the Compensation Bill through the House of Lords? The Compensation Bill is a modest response to public concern about the pernicious and corrosive compensation culture, which often originates in the pursuit of money by a small number of lawyers and which destroys risk taking, personal responsibility and community spirit. It suggests to judges that they canmany of us want it to require judges to do thisconsider the social harm of awards made against those who take responsibility.
	The Armed Forces Bill, however, has the power to compromise the ability or willingness of our armed forces to take necessary action in theatres of action by removing their most important safeguardthe role of the commanding officer. For an individual soldier, the CO represents a trusted bulwark of understanding and common sense who takes account of the differences inherent in active service. Instead of being allowed to intervene, he is now threatened with committing a war crime under the 2001 Act, if he does not actively pursue a prosecution.
	The Government have lost sight of the fact that a court martial system is an inquisitorial system, not an adversarial system like the civil courts. When a matter goes to court martial, it is easier to get a conviction than would be the case in a civilian court.

Andrew MacKinlay: On the hon. Gentleman's point that it is easier to get a conviction in a court martial, I understand the need for the swift administration of justice in operational battleground situations, but when an incident occurs in a home base, the case should be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Julian Brazier: The hon. Gentleman has made his point well. The standard of proof is, of course, supposed to be the same, but the case is decided not by a jury, but by a group of military officers. All the evidence suggests that it is almost impossible to bring a jury case against soldiers in an active theatre, because most members of the jury would not be willing to take the risk of going out there. The system, which is designed to underpin the chain of command, is inquisitorial and makes it easier to get a conviction, but we have removed the safeguard of COs allowing such cases to proceed and introduced the 2001 Act, which means that a CO may become culpable when something, in which he may not have had a hand, takes place, merely because he has allegedly suppressed evidence.
	The Bill goes against a basic, underlying principle in English life. Since the Magna Carta, one of the key principles of our jury system has been trial by one's peers. Who are the peers of a man or woman who has been sent into a combat zone, which may involve a hostile land, being outnumbered or, as the Secretary of State has said, the complicated situations created by modern asymmetric warfare? The answer must be, Other members of the armed forces. The current system involves a random selection of members of the armed forces being put on to a panel, which provides a degree of independence that echoes a jury trial, albeit within an inquisitorial system. The Bill will introduce a standing court martial, which, bluntly, will consist of a group of case-hardened officers who conduct such cases all the timeit may be that such officers have not seen active service for some time, if they have done so at all. It will make it easier to get convictions.
	In a statement about the failure of the case against seven members of the Parachute Regiment, the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr. Ingram), said:
	This case has shown our determination to ensure that justice is done irrespective of the difficulties.[Official Report, 7 November 2005; Vol. 439, c. 22.]
	I think that he meant that justice is being done in a way which will appease left-wing elements in the media, who seem to think that our armed forces are responsible for a chain of atrocities. It is true that there have been a small number of genuine incidents in which there has been genuine public concern, but it should not have led to a situation in which our forces feel under legal siegenot my words, but those of a former Chief of the Defence Staff speaking in another place in July.
	The Bill includes many measures, some of which are welcome, but three major changes have occurred or are occurring to the balance of probability of a conviction: first, the Bill removes the safeguard of scrutiny by the CO, the man who really understands the situation; secondly, the 2001 Act specifies that if COs do not process the papers on a case, they may be done for war crimes; and thirdly, the Bill contains a ridiculous proposal to move away from a proper selection of officers for a court martial towards the ghastly idea of a kangaroo court, which a standing court martial could easily become, of officers who do nothing else over a long period.
	The Government should have heeded the warnings that the six chiefs of staff gave us in July about the pressure that the armed forces feel under from the legal profession at a time when they are being worked extremely hard and facing considerable dangers in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is extraordinary that the Government should introduce a Bill that will increase those pressures and make it much easier for members of the armed forces doing their duty in Iraq to be convicted of offences that in some cases are not even recognised in any previous form of English law.
	This is a bad Bill. I hope that we manage to achieve some changes in Committee, but if not, I sincerely hope that we will vote against it on Third Reading.

Andrew MacKinlay: I congratulate the architects of the Bill, who have brought before Parliament a most interesting measure that is worthy of great study. It is highly appropriate to subject it to the innovative Select Committee procedure for examining legislation. Although the House has had that option for some time, it has not used it very often. I hope that this Bill will be pioneering in the sense that it becomes the usual practice, instead of the exception, in dealing with legislation.
	Every speech by colleaguesI use that word deliberately because I want to include Members on both sides of the Househas contained some stimulating thoughts. I cannot recall a debate in which I have agreed substantially with so many aspects of the cases that Members have advanced. Their contributions have been not only cogent but fair and legitimate, and they will be good material for the Select Committee procedure that will follow this Second Reading.
	I want to raise an issue that is new to this debate. Parliament is very conservativein a non-partisan senseabout having a representative body for members of our armed forces. I am not suggesting a trade union or a body like the Police Federation, but a unique representative body that can do several things, including giving advice, counsel and support to individual members of our armed forces when they feel in some difficulty. There is a manifest need for that. I am as certain as night follows day that one day this House will enact such legislation, and that after a short space of time people will look back in amazement and wonder what the fuss was about. Of course, that Bill would have enshrined in it safeguards to protect the operational decisions of commanders in conflict situations. That would be writ large and understood. Such a measure would be modernising and sensible, and it will inevitably come. I regret that the main parties do not see it as an innovation that would put us in front of many other armed forces in ensuring that the interests of our servicemen and women are protected.
	Such a body would benefit the Government by being a champion of our armed forces in terms of promoting their function, role, ethos and doctrines within the United Kingdom while helping to project them around the world in the positive way that, mercifully, they have always largely maintained. I wish we could begin to contemplate a representative body in addition to an independent complaints body. Indeed, the former could make representations to the latter.
	An area that has been omitted from the Bill and has not been discussed, but which we cannot long avoid discussing in the context of military discipline, is the increasing interface of our armed forces with large numbers of people working for private military companies. Only a few years ago, they were relatively few in number and it would have been considered extraordinary that Her Majesty's Government were hiring private military companies.
	When the Labour Government took office, the issue first came up in the context of our support for the Government of Sierra Leone. There was an interface with Sandline and other related companies that had the potential to cause embarrassment not only to the Government but to our armed forces, especially when the Royal Navy helped to repair a Sandline helicopter. The ground rules need to be clearly set out for commanders and those who have to make decisions, especially when they are being coaxed, encouraged or given a nod and a wink by the Ministry of Defence or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to work alongsideand, I fear, collaborate withprivate military companies. I am uncomfortable with that.
	A few years ago, the Government produced a Green Paper on private military companies. The Foreign Affairs Committee said that such matters should be regulated and that there should be an equivalent of end-use certificates for private military companies. We expressed our concern about rules of engagement and circumstances in which private military companies work alongside or with our regular armed forces.
	The other great fear is that Governmentsincluding our Government, albeit unintentionallyare attracted by private military companies because they give an opportunity of denial if things go wrong, or in the case of what would otherwise be perceived as a military offence, such as bad conduct. Those companies also have a capacity to dissolve themselves so that it is difficult to call anybody to account subsequently.
	Newspapers reported in the past month how the United Kingdom Government hire and have contracts with enormous numbers of private military companiesI call them mercenary soldiers but I do not want to be provocativeand the costs involved. As sure as night turns into day, some commanders will soon be greatly embarrassed by the fact that, because it is the will of Her Majesty's Governmentnamely the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Officethey have had to work alongside those people.
	Unless and until we start to draw up strict ground rules, there are all the ingredients for at least embarrassment and for decent people facing charges and falling foul of the International Criminal Court Act 2001, with which I shall deal shortly. I did not agree with much that the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) said about it, but there is a danger of people being embarrassed by those whom they have to work alongside, who are unaccountable and not subject to military discipline. That is a matter of grave concern. Perhaps those who serve on the Select Committee that considers the Bill will at least scratch the surface of the subject in their deliberations.
	Many hon. Members referred to various clauses. I was interested in clause 25. It is worth drawing the attention of the Houseand the royal householdto it. It states:
	A person subject to service law commits an offence if he misapplies or wastes any public or service property.
	It refers to
	rows 2 to 12 of the Table in section 163.
	That provision sets out all the punishments that would apply if there were an abuse of military material and equipment. That sanction and warning, which is on the face of the Bill, applies to all military personnel from the humblest to those of royal rank.
	I listened carefully to the welcome from hon. Members of all parties for bringing together the military law of the three services. It occurs to me that, if and when the Bill is enacted, there will be a compelling case for our reviewing the service police. I am very much a traditionalist. Indeed, I am displaying tonight a small memento of the Essex Regiment. I had to leave the Chamber briefly when the antique badge was presented to me by Mr. Blake Perkins from the United States earlier this evening. I said that I would be proud to wear it during this debate. That regiment is important to me, as I know it is to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I tell the House this story only to emphasise that I am a traditionalist.
	I want to maintain the Royal Military Police and the police services of the Royal Air Force and the Navy. However, there are some parallels with the three nursing services of the armed forces, in that the police forces arebadged separately but should, operationally, increasingly work together. There would be obvious benefits from economies of scale and from the use of new technologies and the need for specialisms in any police investigatory service. Logically, we should be thinking in terms of an integrated service police force. The police forces should be separately badged, and continue to enjoy the traditions that have endured over the centuries, which should be preserved, but we should bring the separate forces together in much the same way as we have with the nursing services.
	I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Canterbury, and I think that his concerns about the International Criminal Court are wrong. He seems to be genuinely confused about the courtan institution that is ever so importantwhich is embryonic and fragile but which will prove, over the years, to be a great force for good and a sanction against people who are not subject to military law. In relation to our own armed forces, I would remind him that, because we have codified law, both civil and military, it does not apply to us. It provides a catch-all jurisdiction to ensure that some of the bandits around the world, who are not subject to a military code of law, do not get away.

Julian Brazier: There is an important distinction here. Of course I have no problem with the court; I thought that I had made that clear. My objection is to its introduction into British law. The hon. Gentleman must ask himself whether there is the remotest chance either that Colonel Mendonca would have been charged or that General Peter Wall would be being investigated if it had not been for the enactment of that piece of legislation.

Andrew MacKinlay: On the former case, I am not going to trespass into sub judice. It is inappropriate for us to mention that case, and I do not feel qualified to talk about it in detail anyway. In respect of General Wall or anyone else, the law has not changed. Every commander has an obligation to pursue the conduct of war in accordance with long-established conventions and jurisdictions, and to have due regard to minimising casualties and deaths, civilian or military. That is nothing new. I am worried that the hon. Gentleman is getting exercised about that.

Julian Brazier: I do not have chapter and verse in front of me, but let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that the provisions of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 produced new offences for commanding officers and senior officers, and they are phrased in such a way that someone can be prosecuted for having failed in principle to do something, by omission. They involve offences that would never have been covered by military law before, which is why they received so much flak in another place.

Andrew MacKinlay: The hon. Gentleman and I can conclude this discussion only by saying that we will have to agree to disagree. I do not accept that there is a new duty. Military commanders have always had to satisfy themselves that they are behaving consistently with United Kingdom law and with international rules. It is interesting that the service commanders sought their own legal advice in relation to the conflict in Iraq. It was sensible of them to do that. As an aside, if the House   ever had to return to a similar situation, we should seek our own independent advice, as distinct from that of the Attorney-General, who advises Her Majesty's Government. It seems to me that that is the parallel or the lesson to be learned.
	I agree with the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Canterbury and others that there have been prosecutions, or at least investigations, causing great distress to individual service men and women and their colleagues, in circumstances that anyone who stepped back and realised that split-second decisions had to be made would recognise were cruel and unfair. I contrast what happened at a tube station in London, in relation to which no prosecutions, arrests or charges have been made, with what happens to our soldiers, in respect of whom investigations, suspensions and arrests take place. I find the double standard amazing. What happened in a south London tube station has been fudged by the British establishment, the Metropolitan Police and particularly the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, who seems to me to have a disproportionate command and capacity to decide what happens in this country. Individual soldiers, however, who must make immediate decisions where they and their colleagues are clearly under threatin Northern Ireland, Afghanistan, Iraq or any other area of conflict or peacekeepingoften face arrest. I find the disparity unacceptable and illogical.
	I also want to interest the House in one other matter. I have tabled questions during the lifetime of this Labour Government about the Bermuda Regiment. Clauses 359 and 373 contain references to military outfits whose existence arises from the decision or part funding of a legislature of an overseas territory. This is an ambiguous and unsatisfactory area. In essence, the Bill says that where someone in, say, the Royal Gibraltar Regiment or the Bermuda Regiment is alongside, training with or operational with the mainstream British armed forces, he or she is subject to that military discipline. It also indicates that the legislation can be transferred by Order in Council to an organisation such as the Bermuda Regiment. This is unsatisfactory. I think that it suits theForeign and Commonwealth Office and the Government of BermudaI deliberately distinguish between the Government of Bermuda and the Government of Gibraltarto have that grey area.
	That is extremely relevant, because unless there has been a recent change that has not been drawn to the attention of the House, Bermuda has compulsory national service for men. That immediately flags up to Members of the House the fact that there is gender discrimination. In addition, those who refuse to serve are not just arrested but taken in chains, United States-style, in jumpsuits, and with both their feet and arms in manacles. I find that humiliating, and it is contrary to our obligations, particularly under the European convention on human rights. Before someone points out to me that Bermuda is not in EuropeI do know thatwe still have a moral commitment, as we say that we are signed up to that convention, and Bermuda is an overseas territory, not an independent country. It chose not to go for independence. The Governor of Bermuda, who is the commander-in-chief of Bermuda and therefore of the Bermuda Regiment, is appointed by Her Majesty's Foreign Secretary.
	I imagine that this is the first time that the dear Minister sitting on the Front Bench has heard this. He is a decent man and I hope that he will go away and say, Is what Mackinlay says remotely true? Grudgingly, those whom he asks will have to say yes. I hope that the Minister will respond by saying that the position is unacceptable, and that the Government cannot tolerate a complete ignoring of our obligations under the European convention on human rights. After all, the Bill carries a certificatedealt with, I would guess, rather routinely and ritualistically by the Lord Chancellor, or whatever he is called now, and the Attorney-Generalstating that it complies with the convention, but it does not in respect of Bermuda.
	I think it is time that we decided on the status of that regiment. I made a distinction between it and the Gibraltar Regiment because, owing to the sheer nature of Gibraltar, the men and women who serve in the Gibraltar Regiment are daily closely integrated with the rest of the United Kingdom forces. They share training and a key location, and have done all that they can to identify themselves with the British Army.

Robert Key: Where do the Gibraltar defence police fit into the hon. Gentleman's argument?

Andrew MacKinlay: Nowhere. Since the hon. Gentleman asks, however, let me say that I am very interested in Gibraltar. The Gibraltar Services Police are comparable to the Ministry of Defence police, as distinct from the military police. They wear blue uniforms, they are what I call bobbies, and they are badly served by Her Majesty's Governmentagain, unintentionally, but on another occasion I shall be having chats with the Minister about them. They do not have a police authority, and they should; they do not have federation rights, and they should; but that is not relevant to the Bill, so, as you will note, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am not raising it now. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman was right to bring it to our attention.
	Under the heading
	Review of summary findings and punishments,
	clause 151 states
	Where
	(a)   a charge has been heard summarily, and
	(b)   a finding that the charge has been proved has been recorded, the finding or the punishment awarded may be reviewed at any time.
	You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that both under the last Conservative Government and during the lifetime of this Labour Government, when the present Secretary of State was Minister for the Armed Forces, I drew the House's attention to the case of more than 300 British soldiers who had been executed during the first world war on charges set out in part 1 of the Bill: cowardice, desertion, sleeping at post, throwing away arms, and hitting a superior officer. I thought that it was a shade unfair, to say the least, that they had been executed. The present Secretary of State came to the House, andI deeply regret thisI was rather polite to him at the time. I went away very sad and angry, and decided not to let the matter rest.
	I want to be fair to the Secretary of State. He made a speech acknowledging that many of the executions had been unfair, but he advanced a case for not reviewing them. I do not believe that it is a matter of history. The daughter of Harry Farr, executed in October 1916, has taken the Secretary of State to court. Her name is Gertie, and I was privileged to meet her mother. Having checked with the Table Office and the Clerks Department, I find that the matter is not sub judice, and I am pleased to say that I can refer to it.
	Some weeks ago, the judge looked over his desk to counsel for the MOD and asked whether counsel would like to reflect on the matter and return in January. We need to know what the Secretary of State is thinking. I raise the issue now because I believe that the Bill's long title, and clause 151, give me an opportunity to table amendments giving effect to a private Member's Bill that I have tabled in the pastit commanded support from all parts of the Houseto grant a posthumous pardon to those 300-odd soldiers who were executed during the first world war. It would be much better if Her Majesty's Government took the initiative on this matter. To anyone who says that they will not do so, I have to say that, for reasons that I shall explain, they are thinking about it again.
	The New Zealand Parliament has unilaterally granted pardons to members of the Otago Regiment who were executed. Strictly speaking, in respect of our constitution, that is constitutionally irregular. The only Government or Parliament with responsibility for this issue is based at Westminster, because it applies to what were British empire forces. To its credit, I believe, the New Zealand House of Representatives in Wellington decided unilaterally to grant pardons.
	The third pointthe first being the Harry Farr case, to which the Secretary of State will have to respond in the not too distant future, and the second being the New Zealand caserelates to the Taoiseach who, more than a year ago, made a submission to the Ministry of Defence, arguing that the Irish soldiers among the 300 should be pardoned. Given that the Secretary of State for Defence, when he was Minister of State for Defence, stood before Parliament and said, No, regrettably, it cannot be done, one might think that he would have sent off a letter to Dublin saying the same thing. However, he has not done so, as I have ascertained from a parliamentary question during the last couple of weeks. The reply said that a response would be given to the Government of the Irish Republic in due course.
	The Under-Secretary, currently in his place, has some competence in this matter. I hope that he will not consider it offensive for me to say it, but when I approached him about this matter informally, he suggested that dealing with it was above his pay grade. I can understand that and I took it that he was not necessarily unsympathetic, but I expect someone somewhere to respond to the issue. A response must be given to the Irish Republic[Interruption.] I see the Secretary of State assuming his place. From the bottom of my heart, I hope that he will accept that a compelling case has been made and that public opinion has not abated but grown in support of granting pardons. Consistent with Erskine May and our Standing Orders, I believe that either the Bill can be amended to provide for pardons for the 300 or we can establish an independent review panel, as distinct from the Secretary of State, to look into the cases. Now would be great opportunity for him to acknowledge that he is considering the matter.

John Reid: I listened to my hon. Friend's contribution from my office while I was attending another meeting. He will know that, seven years ago, I spent 15 months examining these 306 cases. In 114 cases, I read the files myself. I came up against an apparently immovable obstacle to the granting of a legal pardon. My hon. Friend will also know that I interpreted and extended the word pardon to mean forgiveness and understanding. I allowed the names of people who were executed to be put back into memorials and cenotaphs, I abolished the death penalty and I went as far as I could without making a specifically legal case. As I understand it, I am now being asked to consider not a full pardon, but a conditional pardon relating to the sentence. When that matter reaches me, I will reflect on it seriously, but I cannot give my hon. Friend any guarantee that, while looking at the issue sympathetically, I will be any more successful than I was last time.

Andrew MacKinlay: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that and I hope that he will understand how strongly I feel about this matter. What he said seems to me to leave the door slightly open. He was clearly referring to the court case of Harry Farr, but he cannot ignore the fact that the Taoiseach wrote a formal submission about a year and a half ago. Clearly, the Irish Government expect, and are entitled to expect, a reply in respect of what are loosely called the Irish soldierssoldiers among the 306 who fought in the Irish regiments.
	I acknowledge the Secretary of State's work in personally reviewing those cases, but I invite him to consider setting up a judicial inquiry, or appointing a judge or someone of that category to review those cases, rather than a Minister. [Interruption.] I have to say to those Members who consider this a matter of levity that there is growing and widespread support in this country for such an idea. We should not deal with this issue just because it is popular, but the fact remains that it is, and I intendif I am able to do soto table amendments relating to it, unless the Secretary of State decides, in the spirit of what has been said, to take it on board himself.

Adam Price: It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), who can be counted on to find a royal angle in most Bills that come before uscongratulations to him on that.
	As has been said, this Bill is the most radical revision of military law in almost 50 years, and the Bill team and the Minister should be congratulated on introducing this ambitious set of measures. It provides an opportunity to restore public confidence in the military justice system, which, as we have heard, has been called into question, whether as a result of allegations of abuse in Iraq or at home. Cases have collapsed and some have taken years to be brought to trial; others have been closed because of the inadequacy of the initial investigation. Several successful challenges have been made, moreover, to the military justice system in the European Court of Human Rights.
	Whether we are idealists or realists, it is our responsibility as a society, as the Secretary of State said, to find a new consensus on the military justice system that all can unite behind. I should like to propose two general principles. In a modern democratic society, it is no longer acceptable for the military to investigate itself behind closed doors. Secondly, there has to be a timely and effective public investigation by an independent official body, and defendants and victims' families must be kept informed throughout the entire process. We can argue about how to put those principles into action in the particular operational context of military law, but they are the basic ones that I want to propose for our deliberations.
	Many elements of the Bill are to be welcomed. It places a clear duty on commanding officers to ensure that cases are appropriately investigated, and it requires that service police be informed about serious cases and that they refer them to an independent director of service prosecutions, who may come from a civilian background. Those important measures are to be welcomed and they are in line with the general trend. In 1996, the previous Conservative Government created Army and other prosecuting authorities that were independent of the chain of command, and this Bill makes some important changes to the role of commanding officers.
	As we have heard, however, there is continuing concern about the grievance procedures. The Bill provides a streamlined grievance procedure for members of the armed forces, but it is not clear that it provides one for their relatives or for civilians affected by military action, whether at home or abroad. There is a modernised system for internal service inquiries, but where in the Bill is provision made for an independent inquiry into matters of public concern? Although the Bill continues the trend toward greater independence, it is at its weakest on grievance procedures.
	On the commanding officer's role, human rights lawyers have claimed that more than 20 inquiries into alleged abuse have been blocked by Army commanders. It would be useful to have some information on the number of alleged serious offences that have been dismissed at a commanding officer's request. There certainly appears in at least one case to be prima facie evidence of
	a concerted attempt by the chain of command to influence and prevent an investigation.
	That is not my contention; I am quoting directly from the Attorney-General's letter to the then Secretary of State for Defence. Indeed, the Attorney-General went on to say:
	In this particular case it was precisely because of the exercise of those powers
	the commanding officer's powers
	that I felt it necessary to move the case to the civilian jurisdiction in order to maintain public confidence.
	It therefore appears that there is a strong case for the proposed changes to the commanding officer's role.
	Other concerns have been expressed by the Attorney-General and others about the quality of initial investigations. We are told that at least six prosecutions have collapsed because of inadequate investigations, and we have also heard about the case of seven members of the Parachute Regiment. We should remember that in that case the judge found that there might be
	sufficient evidence . . . for a court martial board to conclude that Nadhem Abdullah
	the victim in question
	died as a result of

Bob Russell: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that no body was ever found, and that there were no hospital records whatever? How could there be a trial in a civil court in this country when there is no evidence of a body, let alone of a murder?

Adam Price: I am quoting directly from the Judge Advocate General, who said that there might be
	sufficient evidence . . . for a court martial board to conclude that Nadhem Abdullah died as a result of an assault carried out by
	the section, but that there was no evidence in relation to any individual defendant, so clearly the case should not have been brought.
	The point that the Judge Advocate General was making was that there were serious omissions in the investigation, such as the failure to search hospital records or take DNA swabs, the fact that defendants and witnesses were not interviewed and cautioned until six months after the incident, and that the clothing of the victim should have been seized much earlier. Indeed, he reiterated that general point in evidence before the Constitutional Affairs Committee, saying that there were serious concerns in the Army prosecuting authority about the quality of the investigation.
	I know that the Under-Secretary of State has said that the intention is to have closer liaison with and closer early involvement by the prosecuting authority in the investigation, as is the practice with the Crown Prosecution Service, which is now present in most police stations. It would be interesting to hear what specific proposals he can present to improve the quality of investigations, which has been such a problem in many cases.
	Many hon. Members have mentioned the length of casesthey take too long to come before a court martial. Simple cases take months and some take more than a year from offence to trial. In the case of Baha Mousa it took, I think, 22 months before anyone was charged with the offence. It would be interesting to hear what the Under-Secretary has to say, as I understand that some of the proposals are intended to expedite cases. There could be a problem with resourcesa matter that the hon. Gentleman has touched on in comments outside the House.
	The subject of the independence of investigations has been touched on by several hon. Members. There is still some confusion in my mind about the role and jurisdiction of the civilian authorities in relation to serious offences such as rape, murder and manslaughter committed within the United Kingdom. I understand that the Secretary of State said earlier that there had been no change, and that there was already concurrent jurisdiction between the civilian and military authorities.
	In his evidence to the Constitutional Affairs Committee, the Judge Advocate General said that under current law, offences of murder, manslaughter and rape committed in the UK were dealt with by the civilian court, and the court martial did not have jurisdiction, although he was of the opinion that that would change as a result of these proposals. I would be grateful if the Under Secretary clarified that matter.
	As a general principle, there is a need for clear and unambiguous civilian control of the investigations of suspicious deaths within the UK. Indeed the High Court recently made that point in the case of Kathleen Thompson, criticising the Army's decision to delegate to the Royal Military Police in that case. Of course, a broader point is made by the Deepcut families and the Surrey police, who have reiterated the need for an external review of the investigations, and by the Defence Committee, in its call for an independent military complaints commission.
	As we have heard, we have seen the setting up of the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. Last year, the independent prisons ombudsman was introduced, so that it is no longer the Prison Service that investigates deaths in custody. In order to achieve public confidence and effective public scrutiny, we have an independent process in all those areas in which the state has a particular monopoly.

Pete Wishart: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Does he agree that the military is the last bastion standing against that trend and that it is time to ensure that we have a proper external complaints commission, authority or ombudsman to pursue such matters? When the Army investigates itself, there is a sense of institutional protectionismit attempts to protect its own interests. We need a completely separate process to monitor and examine complaints effectively in order to satisfy public opinion and the families involved.

Adam Price: I agree; we need an independent process to maintain public confidence. If proper processes were in place to ensure effective public scrutiny, the greatest benefit would be to the armed forces.
	In the response by Ministers to the previous Defence Committee's report on Deepcut, the promise was made that the Government would look at the international models that it mentioned. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) also mentioned those models. There is a wide range of international models, all with different elements of independent oversight of procedures. The Government have made some compromise, with an independent member of the grievance panel, but that will not be enough to satisfy the Deepcut families or the wider public interest in independence in the process. External review does happen, and I understand that South Wales police and Lancashire police have occasionally been asked to participate in peer review of investigations. However, we do not have a single, independent body to which families, service personnel or members of the public can make their complaints.
	The Judge Advocate General made some additional proposals to improve the independence of the process. For example, he said that the military court service, which is now part of the MOD, should join the civilian court service as part of the Department for Constitutional Affairs; that the administrative staff and those responsible for listing cases should be the responsibility of the judges, as in the civilian system, and not of officials in the MOD; and that sentencing should be done by judges, not by the military panels that currently decide penalties within a bracket set by the Judge Advocate General.
	The key point is the need for an independent ombudsman. Otherwise the only avenues available for families or civilians abroadin areas where we are in military occupationwill be to call for a public inquiry, with all the expense that that means for the public purse, or through the system of tort. It has always been possible, of course, to bring civil proceedings against the British Army, but that requires expenditure by the individuals. Surely an independent military complaints commission or ombudsman would be the most effective remedy, whether for the family of Baha Mousa in Iraq, where we were responsible as the military occupation gave us jurisdiction, for the Deepcut families or in other allegations of abuse. It would allow greater public scrutiny, which is a feature of the American system.
	Whatever our feelings about the allegations of abuse levelled at American forces, the degree of public scrutiny by the American authorities is unparalleled compared with the amount of public scrutiny we have been able to effect in the UK. At the last count, there were 12 reports by the American authorities into allegations of abuse in IraqSchlesinger, Taguba, Jones, Fay, Kern, Church and so onon top of the congressional inquiries. There has been nothing like that in the UK. We understand that after the Camp Breadbasket case, the Army conducted an internal review, but we are not allowed to see it. We do not even know whether it has been completed. It covers many issues that are sub judice and we do not need to see those, but a version of the report would inform our debates. We have nothing like the public scrutiny of the military that is undertaken in the United States and other jurisdictions.
	I want to make a few points about legal representation. Much opprobrium has been heaped on the heads of human rights lawyers who acted for Iraqi civilians. I do not want to enter that debate, but many of those lawyers operated pro bono publicoin the public interestand where we deny Iraqis the right to take cases under local law it is our responsibility to ensure that they have adequate legal representation in UK courts. Where there is a status of forces agreement internationally, rather than blackguarding such human rights lawyers, we should consider procedures for providing adequate legal representation for civilians in those areas.
	I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble): soldiers found guilty of murder, rape or bullying should not be allowed to remain in the Army and to rejoin it on their release. A recent case involving two members of the Guards who were found guilty of manslaughter and allowed to rejoin the regiment caused much upset to the family of Peter McBride, the individual who was killed. Queen's regulations state that a person should be dismissed after a custodial sentence unless there are exceptional circumstances. Will the Minister tell us whether changes are proposed as a result of the Bill?
	In relation to the post-appeal remedy, I understand that service personnel have no recourse to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, although Ministers have said that they should have. It is not clear why such a provision has not been included in the Bill. The Minister said that other priorities made it impossible, but perhaps he could elucidate. What are those priorities? Why has not it been possible to include the provision?

Gerald Howarth: This has been a fascinating debate. It is to the great credit of the House that it has been able to conduct such an informed and well-argued debate despite the fact that this 375-clause, 250-page, 15-schedule Bill was made available to us only 10 days ago and the explanatory notes only last week. The debate has been better than we might have anticipated.
	In a spirit of generosity, I thank the Under-Secretary for making available himself and his Bill team to brief some hon. Members last Thursday. I should like to add to the compliments that have been extended already to those in the Bill team for the work that they have done. However, it is worth making the point that the Government have had a long time in which to prepare the Bill, that the Defence Select Committee has not had a draft of the Bill and that the Opposition have had even less time.
	However, we have had a good debate with a lot of contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) welcomed the proposals on the redress of grievances, but she did not think that they went far enough. She, like many other hon. Members who have spoken today, supports the reinstatement of the annual review.
	The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore) broadly supports the Bill. He was concerned that we must not undermine the armed forces. Nevertheless, he thought that a few provisions might be needed that some hon. Members might feel would lead to that effect. He, too, is in favour of an annual review.
	The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), with whom I had the privilege of serving on the Defence Committee of which he was an assiduous member, argued the case for creating an independent commission, which is very much in line with what the Select Committee has been proposing.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot)a former distinguished Minister for Defence Procurement, now the even more distinguished Chairman of the Select Committee on Defencefaithfully argued the cause espoused by his Committee in saying that he wanted an independent commission and an annual report, two things of which the Committee has been strongly in favour. He drew on his own experience of the Mull of Kintyre issue as evidence to support his case.
	My right hon. Friend made an interesting point about the tri-service nature of the Bill. It is accepted that a 50 per cent. increase in courts martial is likely in respect of the Royal Navy, as a result of the changes to that service. As a number of right hon. and hon. Members have pointed out, the Royal Navy is the service that is most affected by the proposals. A matter of keen further debate in the Select Committee is likely to be whether we have got the arrangements right and whether the prize of harmonisation, as Captain Crabtree described it in evidence to the Defence Committee, is worth the price that is being paid by the Royal Navy. The jury is out on that issue, and we must examine it in more detail later.
	My right hon. Friend drew further on the importance of the Defence Committee being represented on the Committee that will consider the Bill, and I am sure that that will be the case.
	The hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) duly praised the Select Committeealways a good startexpressed her concern for the parents who have lost their children as a result of tragedies in the armed services and referred to the need to remove what she called the stain of Deepcut. I do not intend to dwell very much on the Deepcut issue, but I am well aware that it is of very great concern on both sides of the House. Of course, Deepcut lies just over the border of my constituency.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) made a very spirited contribution. I am extremely grateful to him for the very detailed work that he has done on the Bill and for drawing my attention to clause 35, on annoyance by flying. As an aviator, I have to say that he is absolutely right about the risks that the Royal Air Force could be exposed to by a literal interpretation of that clause. I am sure that that matter will be explored in even greater detailit certainly will be if I have anything to do with it because, as I read it, even in Farnborough, I have constituents who are likely to be annoyed by anything that flies in the air, and I am sure that the situation is even worse in other constituencies. I think that we will have to revisit that one. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend noticed this, but interestingly enough the penalty for a person found guilty of the offence would be up to and including dismissal from the service. There is thus a pretty draconian penalty attached to the offence.
	My hon. Friend drew attention to the crucial role of chaplains. As a churchwarden of the Royal Garrison church in Aldershot, I have the privilege of working with military chaplains. It is entirely right and proper to put on the record the fantastic work that is being done by chaplains, especially Army chaplains, in the difficult theatre of Iraq.
	The hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) welcomed the tri-service aspect of the Bill. He wants it to restore morale, which he says has taken a knock on the question of whether a military or civilian approach should apply.
	I was sorry that I missed the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). I gather that he made a typically trenchant speech, and he certainly gave me encouragement during my earlier interventions. He apparently said that behind the Bill lies what he called an ugly trend of civilianising the armed services, and he was right to issue such a warning. He also expressed concern about removing the powers of commanding officers, which is a matter to which I hope to return in a moment. I gather that he would like us to vote against the Bill on Third Reading, but that will depend on the progress that is made during the Select Committee proceedings.

John Reid: On the speech made by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), may I clear up something that he has repeated several times that is factually inaccurate? It is not for us to comment in any way on the merits of a case before the courts. However, it is quite wrong to suggest that the charges laid against Colonel Mendonca arise from the International Criminal Court Act 2001they do not. They arise from section 29A of the Army Act 1955. The offences of which the soldiers are charged in the case pre-exist the International Criminal Court Act because inhumane treatment has been in English law since the adoption of the Geneva conventions into English law in 1957. Manslaughter has been in English law for decades. The fact that the offences were rolled into the International Criminal Court Act does not mean that they were introduced by that Act. I want to place the factual record before hon. Members because there has been repeated inadvertent misleading of the House on the matter.

Gerald Howarth: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has noted the Secretary of State's comments. Obviously, I was not in the Chamber when my hon. Friend made his speech.

Julian Brazier: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Gerald Howarth: I will be delighted to give way to my hon. Friend in a moment, but may I tell the Secretary of State that in the briefingI am sorry to make the point again that we had no other briefingtitled Background to the Forthcoming Armed Forces Bill, the House of Commons Library, to which people have rightly paid tribute, referred to the case of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment and the Intelligence Corps? The briefing said:
	The latter case has attracted particular comment as it represents the first case brought against British Service personnel under the provisions of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 and the first case against an officer for 'negligently performing a duty', resulting from operations in Iraq.

Gerald Howarth: rose

John Reid: There is nothing inconsistent between that and my accurate description of the fact that the offences of inhumane treatment and manslaughter for which charges were brought were of long standing in English lawboth military and civilianand existed long before the International Criminal Court Act 2001. In the case of Colonel Mendonca, the charges were brought under section 29A of the Army Act 1955. That is the accurate position. It is up to hon. Members to regret, perhaps, that the offences were incorporated in the International Criminal Court Act, or that the Act was passed, but it is quite wrong to imply that the offences would not have been extant in English law if the Act had not been in force. They would have been in law under the Army Act, English law and the Geneva conventions that were brought into our law in 1957incidentally, under a Conservative Government.

Gerald Howarth: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has heard that. He might wish to intervene.

Julian Brazier: The Secretary of State has made the point that we are not allowed under the sub judice rule to comment on a particular case, although the investigation currently being carried out in respect of General Wall has not yet resulted in charges, so we could comment on that. The Secretary of State must acceptthis is not just me speaking but a number of distinguished and gallant Members of another placethat the provision to which he refers takes us on to entirely new ground. For the first time, commanding officers can in principle be charged for errors of omission which would not have been offences under military law.

Gerald Howarth: I am sure that the House is grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention.
	Lying behind recent cases has been the perceptionwe all know the importance of perception, and my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) made that clearthat if it is not the European Court of Human Rights, it is the International Criminal Court that is exerting a pressure. Whether the Secretary of State likes it or not, that is the impression that is being created. It is a serious matter. My view is that it has been wrong that we in the United Kingdom, and particularly we in this Parliament, have been obliged to change the regulations by which our armed forces are governed to meet the requirements of a court.
	I see that the Secretary of State shakes his head. The Armed Forces Discipline Act 2000 was directly the result of a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights. One of the reasons why we have a tri-service Bill, if I might tell the Secretary of State why he is introducing the Bill, is because there have been a number of Acts since 1955 and 1957separate services Actsarising directly out of decisions made by the European Court of Human Rights, to which the House has felt obliged to respond.
	I note that the Secretary of State wishes to intervene. As long as his hon. Friend the Minister does not keep tapping his watch at me, I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

John Reid: I am merely responding to the specific allegations about the specific case. It might as well be argued that the Geneva conventions and protocols of 1957 led to the charges against Colonel Mendonca and his men. It is precisely the concept of inhumane treatment introduced under the 1957 Geneva protocols, brought into law by the then Conservative Government, that forms the legal basis that led to incorporation under the later ICC legislation. That puts in context the sort of perceptions that are being encouraged by misleading statements in this area. I do not deny that there is a perception, but part of that perception is being fuelled and encouraged by those who are making misleading statements, inadvertently or otherwise, about the nature of specific charges being brought against specific people.

Gerald Howarth: Clearly, these charges are being brought under English law. Charges cannot be brought in any other way in an English court. The question still arises whether they would have been brought had it not been for the existence of the ICC.
	The Secretary of State will be aware that in a debate in the other place on 14 July a number of significant contributions were made. I draw the Secretary of State's attention to the contribution of Lord Campbell of Alloway, who spent five years in Colditz. He is not a man who is unfamiliar with military matters. He drew attention to a letter that had been sent by the Adjutant-General on 24 March to CGS and CIC Land in respect of what I think was Trooper Williams' case. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury referred to it and it is worth putting it on the record again. The Adjutant-General wrote:
	With current legal, political and ginger group interest in the deaths of Iraqi civilians during operation telic: our investigation and subsequent failure to offer for prosecution could become a cause celebre for pressure groups, and a significant threat to the military justice system.
	I submit that it is not a threat to the military justice system; it is a threat to our armed forces. They are being treated in a fashion where they are being used effectively as guinea pigs to satisfy a demand for what amounts to a pretty rough justice. In that letter, one of the most senior generals in the British Army said that we were under pressure to bring prosecutions. That is not acceptable.

Kevan Jones: I am very fond of the hon. Gentleman, who is a former member of the Defence Committee. However, he is clearly out of step with his Front Bench team, as a consensual mood of politics is supposed to prevail. The Secretary of State clearly explained the position, so efforts to perpetuate anti-Euro myths will not do anything to help the British armed forces.

Gerald Howarth: It has nothing to do with anti-Euro myths or with anything else. Time is short, and I have made that point.
	The hon. Members for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) and for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) both called for independent investigations. The hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr allied himself to human rights lawyers, which was brave of him.
	Several hon. Members have referred to written evidence from the Judge Advocate General to the Constitutional Affairs Committee, in which he said:
	There are several cogent reasons for maintaining a unique system of military justice, separate and distinct from the civilian system. These are to:
	support operational effectiveness and morale;
	maintain discipline which is an essential element of command;
	reflect the special and unique nature of the Armed Forces, in which sailors, soldiers and airmen are required to use lethal force to support Government policy, to risk their personal safety, and to be prepared to lay down their lives for their country; and
	extend the law of England and Wales to personnel serving overseas and outside the jurisdiction of the civilian courts.
	He continued:
	  The limited powers of Commanding Officers to deal summarily and immediately with minor offences are subject to the unfettered right of the defendant to elect trial by Court-Martial or to appeal to the Summary Appeal Court for a de novo hearing after the Commanding Officer's hearing. The two tiers together (Courts-Martial and summary dealings) amount to a system which is proportionate, effective, economical, ECHR compliant, and meets the unique requirements of the Armed Forces.
	I do not think that any of us could better encapsulate the importance and relevance of a separate military system. Broadly speaking, we support the thrust of the Bill, which is why we shall not oppose it on Second Reading. However, we have a number of reservations. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring made it clear that we are concerned about the ramifications for the authority of commanding officers. It is not as though we are discussing these things in a rarefied academic forum. We are doing so against a backdrop of challenges that face our armed forces day in, day out as they make life and death decisions, and I make no apology for repeating that to the Secretary of State. A group of soldiers on patrol do not know whether the man with his hand in the air is holding a grenade or a tomato. We must give our men the benefit of the doubt in those circumstances, because if we do not do so we will destroy the very system in which we take great pride.
	There is genuine concern about such matters, which I hope the Committee will be able to address. The two cases in the civilian courts that have been mentionedthe Trooper Williams case and the case involving seven members of 3 Paraboth collapsed. It was disgraceful that a lawyer went to Iraq to trawl for Iraqis, who were basically bounty hunters collecting 100 a day from the British taxpayer to denounce our armed forces. That is unacceptable, and I believe the Iraqi Government should apologise for the disgraceful action of those Iraqis, who did nothing to promote the cause of Iraq among the British people. The problems highlighted by those cases must be addressed.
	A few final pointsfirst, the Bill makes no reference to rules of engagements, which are of concern to us all. There ought to be some provision for those. Secondly, we must have an annual review, for the reasons that I outlined. There is common consent right across the House that annual review is essential. Thirdly, I hope that the Bill is not a prelude to some sort of Canadian-style merger of all three services. The Secretary of State shakes his headI take great encouragement from that. One of the strengths of our system is the individual ethos of each service. We are trying to harness and retain the individual ethos within a more procedurally efficient system.
	The Bill will be committed to a Select Committee. I am sorry that that will conclude on 27 April. It is a complex Bill, but we have a month longer than was originally offered, so that, at least, is encouraging.
	In conclusion, I happened to be in Basra the night that two members of the British armed forces were rescued. I spoke to Brigadier Lorimer the following night, and I know the Secretary of State had phoned to congratulate him on an outstanding operation. The dramatic pictures of those Coldstream Guardsmen getting out of those Warriors on fire went around the world. A couple of days later I happened to be in al-Udeid in Qatar, which is a US airbase where Britain has a significant presence. I was sitting in the canteen watching that on CNN, and the sheer amazement of the American servicemen and women that our armed forces had put up with that level of provocation without a shot being fired said a vast amount about the self-restraint and self-discipline of our armed forces. In that, we should take great pride. It is very important that in the Bill we do nothing that will undermine the power of commanding officers and the bond between commanding officers and their men which led to that self-restraint and self-discipline, which are admired throughout the world.

Don Touhig: This has been an important debate, with significant contributions. I shall try to answer as many points as I can, but I hope Members will forgive me if I cannot cover every point.
	We place an enormous responsibility on the shoulders of our servicemen and women. We ask them to operate in circumstances that are often difficult, unpredictable and dangerous. We ask them to perform tasks that have no parallel in the civilian world. Sometimes they make the ultimate sacrifice. We, and they, demand very high standards of behaviour, whether overseas on operations or training at home. Discipline is essential and service law is essential to enforce it. Ultimately we all want an effective, efficient fighting force. At the heart of discipline in any military unit is the commanding officer, and as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear in his opening remarks, this key role is retained and reinforced in the Bill. There is no doubt we need a separate system of law for the armed forces, and it needs to reflect the increasingly joint nature of their work. The Bill delivers that.
	I shall cover as many points raised by colleagues as I can. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), at the Dispatch Box for the first time in his new role, spoke several times about perception and mentioned the Royal Military Police giving warnings in Basra to our troops there. He said that there is a perception that, in Iraq, they will face investigation if they kill or seriously injure someone in battle. This is an important matter and I want to deal with it clearly.
	As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, our forces operate within the rule of law and have robust rules of engagement. No soldier has ever been prosecuted for killing an enemy in battle. If there is a credible allegation of, say, murder, it is right that the service police carry out an investigation. The Bill offers protection to the accused in that respect as well. He went on to quote the noble Lord in another place who stated, as was mentioned several times this evening, that our forces are under legal siege. I totally reject that. It is important that we get the message across that there have been 80,000 deployments in Iraq since we have been there. As my right hon. Friend said earlier today, there have been 184 investigations and 164 have been concluded. Our forces are not under legal siege at all.

Linda Gilroy: Will the Minister give way?

Don Touhig: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I want to cover as many points as possible, although I would normally give way.
	The hon. Member for Woodspring pointed out that he agrees that perception is a key problem, and I hope that Conservative Front Benchers will join me and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in debunking the perception that our forces are under legal siege, because they are not.
	The hon. Gentleman suggested opting out of the European convention on human rights, as the French have done. The French reservation is often quoted erroneously, because it no longer impacts significantly on the French military justice system following legislative reforms in 1982 and 1999 that provided for greater involvement by the civilian courts. The French model does not commend itself to us at all.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether serving personnel are at risk of prosecution by the International Criminal Court, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State addressed the matter in his intervention on the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) a few minutes ago. It would not be right to go into further detail on the case of Colonel Mendonca and others associated with that matter, except to say that my right hon. Friend has clarified the situation.
	The hon. Member for Woodspring raised his concern about the reviewing authority. Under review, a person who was not present in court and who has heard neither the accused nor the prosecution can quash a conviction or change a sentence that is decided by the judge and the service members of the court martial, so long as he considers the new sentence to be no more severe. That power has no parallel in any other part of the British justice system, and we think it appropriate that it should be changed.
	The hon. Gentleman discussed extra risks to soldiers caused by the extension of military jurisdiction to murder and manslaughter in the UK. A civilian jurisdiction already exists in almost all cases. It will still be right for the civilian system to consider other cases, specifically offences in a purely military context for which a military court may be more appropriate.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the number of summary hearings. At the present time, 95 per cent. of military justice matters are dealt with summarily, and we believe that that percentage will not change greatly as a result of the Bill.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the randomly selected panel. The important point is that members of the panel are selected independently and that those who are too close to a case are excluded.
	The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members discussed the five-year review and the annual review. The Government will be happy to take the views of the Defence Committee as we consider the legislation, because it is important that everybody gets a chance to have their say.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) raised a number of matters, including the duration of the service discipline Acts, a matter which we are prepared to consider. She also mentioned annual renewal, and if it is appropriate for the Committee to make representations, we will certainly listen to them.
	The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, expressed concern about the delay in publishing the explanatory notes. I apologise for the delay, which has happened on many occasions to all Governments, which is no excuse, but we felt that the important thing was to concentrate on getting the Bill ready. I am pleased that the explanatory notes were issued a few days after we published the Bill, but I am sorry that they were not available immediately.
	The hon. Gentleman and several other hon. Members pointed out that much will be left to regulation, and I understand those concerns, which I have discussed with members of the Defence Committee and others. A great deal of work clearly remains to be done on the regulations, and I have no doubt that hon. Members will press me to provide as much information as possible. The matter is complex, but I understand that when hon. Members are asked to endorse legislation, they want to know exactly what powers they are conferring on the Secretary of State and how the Secretary of State will use them.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether we will produce draft regulations on redress. As I said, we will aim to cover those details in Committee.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) asked about the complaints commission. Some, including the Defence Committee, have expressed the view that complaints from service personnel about bullying and harassment are best dealt with by an independent ombudsman. I can see that that might be superficially attractive, but the fundamental problem is that setting up an alternative source of authority would undermine the chain of command. I believe that it is vital for the ethos and operational effectiveness of our armed forces that the role of the chain of command should be preserved. No doubt we will discuss that in Committee.
	My hon. Friend mentioned the independence of service inquiries. In some cases, an independent investigation is vitalfor example, in inquests and special independent inquiries. That is another matter that we will consider in Committee.
	The right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), who is Chairman of the Defence Committee, welcomed the Bill. I pay tribute to him, his Committee and his predecessors for the pre-legislative scrutiny that they carried out as we prepared the Bill. I thank him for the compliments that he paid to the Bill team. Ministers stand up here in the Chamber, but the people on the Bill team do a huge amount of work behind the scenes. I am grateful to them and to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks.
	The right hon. Gentleman made several other points that I will try to deal with. He expressed concern about the 50 per cent. increase in naval courts martial. In setting the limits of commanding officers' powers and jurisdiction, we looked very carefully at which criminal offences naval COs try summarily and asked the Navy which of those should be included in the Bill. Those that they wanted have been retained for naval COs and given to COs of other services. Eight offences are listed in the Bill. We do not think that that will result in a significant increase in courts martial, but the situation will have to be monitored with the progress of time.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) raised several matters relating to family concerns. She will fully understand I am not in a position to comment on matters that are still under consideration. She said that everything that the Ministry of Defence does as regards our armed forces should be open to scrutiny. I remind her and other Members that we have five days a year when we debate defence matters in this House, so the opportunities are there to hold Ministers to account.
	My hon. Friend asked why the Bill removes the link between imprisonment and dismissal. We think that the current rule is too harsh. If a member of the armed forces is sentenced to imprisonment, he must be dismissedthere is no possibility of looking at extenuating circumstances. In most cases, imprisonment will result in dismissal, but fairness demands that that is not applied rigidly. My hon. Friend asked whether service personnel will retain their rank in prison. The answer is no. In the rare circumstances in which a serviceman is sentenced to prison, he does not retain his rank. The offender will have no rank while in prison. On his release and return to service, he will, having paid his debt, revert to the rank that he held before being in prison. He will of course have lost any seniority that he would have gained during his imprisonment.
	My hon. Friend raised the issue of family members attending boards of inquiry, as did the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire. We recognise that in the past we have not always done well in that respect. That is why we have reviewed how best to meet the concerns that have understandably been expressed. Under the new arrangements introduced last year, we endeavour to ensure that the next of kin are much better informed about the progress and outcome of inquiries. I have no doubt that we shall revert to that matter in Committee.
	The hon. Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) was generally pleased with the Bill. He raised several matters that I might answer better as we go through our work in Committee but I shall consider carefully his detailed points and, if it is appropriate, I shall write to him. He specifically mentioned annoyance by flying, which clause 35 covers. Clause 35 will be engraved on my gravestone. The Bill sets out all the disciplinary offences and the clause does not provide for a new offence. At the RAF's request, the offence is being retained. Few complaints of low flying result in prosecutions but I am sure that, if the hon. Gentleman gets the opportunity to serve on the Committee, he will revert to the matter.
	I shall examine the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) and, if appropriate, I shall write to him in detail.
	The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) started by saying that the cuts that the Government had imposed on defence were wrong. I am not sure where he gets that information. The Conservative Government's record on defence cuts was shameful. The Government have increased expenditure on defence and we are proud of that. The hon. Gentleman said that he starts out as a sceptic about the measure, and I suspect that he will remain one. Again, he did not help by referring to a blizzard of investigations.
	It is important that all we do as a Government is open to scrutiny and criticism in the House but we do the morale of our armed forces no good by suggesting that they are under legal siege or that there is a blizzard of investigations. [Interruption.] I do not care about the source of the comments. I simply stress to colleagues that, if they continue to repeat them without any basis in fact, they do great damage to the morale of our forces.
	The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the standing court martial. I give him the benefit of the doubtperhaps he was not in the Chamber but seeing his new leader when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the matter. If he reads Hansard tomorrow, he will realise that his question has been answered.
	The hon. Gentleman said that the court martial was inquisitorial rather than adversarial. Frankly, that is nonsenseit is a load of rubbish. In an inquisitorial system, an examining judge asks questions to elicit answers and reaches a view about whether he is satisfied that the case is proved. The court martial is adversarial because there is a defence and a prosecution. Witnesses are called and it is exactly the same as a Crown court.
	The hon. Gentleman also referred to civilianising the military system and removing the powers of commanding officers. I cannot understand how he interprets that from the Bill. He should examine it more closely. Perhaps because of our failure to get the explanatory notes out early, he may need to devote more time to reading it. I suggest that he does thathe will learn a great deal more as a result.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) raised many issues. He mentioned the Bermuda Regiment. When on duty, it is part of the British forces. I note his point about the appointment of the Governor of Bermuda being in the gift of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I will mention my hon. Friend's interest and, when there is next a vacancy, perhaps he will be considered for it.
	The hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) made several points. I shall write to him should that be appropriate. Specific reference was made to the Judge Advocate General's views. I have a letter from the Judge Advocate General in which he welcomes the Bill and is pleased to give it public support.
	The current military justice system is effective but needs to be brought up to date. Just as training, equipment and operations have been updated since the cold war, we need to modernise the legal system that personnel use at home and carry with them in operations. The Bill is an historic measure that fulfils a promise that we made in the armed forces strategic defence review. I commend it to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill read the Second time.

ARMED FORCES BILL (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83(A)(6) (Programme motions),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Armed Forces Bill:
	Select Committee
	1. The Bill shall be committed to a Select Committee.
	2. The Select Committee shall report the Bill to the House on or before Thursday 27th April.
	Committee of the whole House, consideration and Third Reading
	3. On report from the Select Committee the Bill shall be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House.
	4. Proceedings in Committee of the whole House on re-committal, any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed at one day's sitting.
	5. Proceedings in Committee of the whole House and any proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	6. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings or at the moment of interruption on that day, whichever is the earlier.
	7. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House and on consideration and Third Reading.
	Other proceedings
	8. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further message from the Lords) may be programmed.[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
	Question agreed to.

ARMED FORCES BILL

Ordered,
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill:
	1. The Committee shall have 14 members, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.
	2. The Committee shall have power
	(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place and to report from day to day the minutes of evidence taken before it;
	(b) to admit the public during the examination of witnesses and during consideration of the Bill (but not otherwise); and
	(c) to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity relating to the provisions of the Armed Forces Bill.[Mr. Alan Campbell.]

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Social Security

That the draft Jobseeker's Allowance (Jobseeker Mandatory Activity) Pilot Regulations 2005, which were laid before this House on 15th November, be approved.[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Northern Ireland

That the draft Safety of Sports Grounds (Northern Ireland) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 21st November, be approved.[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
	Question agreed to.

COMMITTEES

Mr. Speaker: With permission, I shall take motions 6 and 7 together.
	Ordered,

European Scrutiny

That Rosie Cooper be discharged from the European Scrutiny Committee and Mrs. Sharon Hodgson be added.

Procedure

That Sir Nicholas Winterton be discharged from the Procedure Committee and Mr. Christopher Chope be added.[Rosemary McKenna, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

PETITIONS
	  
	Council Tax

Joan Humble: I wish to present a petition drawn up by my constituent, Mr. Derek Bunting, about council tax.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons votes to replace Council Tax with a fair and equitable tax that, without recourse to any supplementary benefit, takes into account ability to pay from disposable income, such tax to be based on a system that is free from any geographically or politically motivated discrimination, and that clearly identifies the fiscal and managerial responsibilities of all involved parties.
	To lie upon the Table.

Alan Duncan: I rise to present a petition signed by more than 40 of my constituents from Melton Mowbray and nearby, who are enraged by the burden and unfairness of the council tax, and by its doubling over the past few years.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons votes to replace the Council Tax with a fair and equitable tax that takes into account ability to pay from disposable income. The tax should be based on a system that is free from any geographically or politically motivated discrimination, and should clearly identify the fiscal and managerial responsibilities of all involved parties.
	To lie upon the Table.

A27 (IMPROVEMENTS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Coaker.]

Nick Herbert: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the need to improve the A27, both in and outside my constituency. I am sorry to detain the Minister this evening, but may I first congratulate him on his recent appearance on Top Gear, and in particular on his performance as a star in a reasonably priced car? He came 15th among the celebrities, beating Sir Cliff Richard, Jordan and Vinnie Jones, but coming a full two seconds behind Dame Ellen MacArthur. His licence would not be at risk if he were to travel on the A27 in my constituency, however, because the traffic is at a complete standstill for much of the time.
	The A27 runs for 68 miles along, or just inland of, the south coast. It links Portsmouth and the M27 in the west with Pevensey and the A259 in the east. It is the only defined east-west lorry route across Sussex. It is part of the south coast lifeline, giving access to the south coast ports and the channel tunnel, and it is regarded as a strategic road in Britain's transport network. Most of the A27 in West Sussex is dualled. The only stretches that are not are in Arundel and Worthing. I shall focus on the A27 around Arundel, because that is in my constituency, but I know that many of my hon. Friends are equally concerned about the lack of improvements on sections of the road in Chichester and, in particular, in Worthing.

Peter Bottomley: Just in case the Minister has not been down to the A27 recently, his advisers will tell him that it is faster to go through Chichester than to use the bypass, it is sometimes faster to go through Arundel than to use the bypass, and it is probably faster to go along the coast road than along the national road in Worthing, Shoreham and Lancing. Will the Minister please come and try it for himself?

Nick Herbert: I echo my hon. Friend's request; I hope that the Minister will come and see the problems for himself. He is smiling at the moment, but there is a serious problem.
	Plans for the Arundel bypass were first formulated in 1985. Two decades later, the bypass still has not come to fruition. The bypass that exists runs between two sides of the town, cutting off one mainly residential half from the town centre. If one travels west on the A27, having eventually escaped the congestion in Worthing, one will get on to a dual carriageway for a few precious miles, but it simply runs out at Arundel. The flyover is there, and was ready for the dual carriageway to continue, but lies moribund.
	That has a serious impact in several respects, the first of which is congestion. Traffic flows are continually rising on the A27. In the six years between 1994 and 2000 alone, they increased by 25 per cent. Traffic flows on the A27 are three to four times more than the designed capacity of the road, which causes long tailbacks. I became personally aware of that before I was elected as Member of Parliament for Arundel and South Downs, when I missed my grandfather's funeral as a result of extended delays, first at Arundel and then in Worthing. The traffic flow on the A27 through Arundela town of 4,200 inhabitantswas 27,000 vehicles a day in 2001. As the right hon. Member for North-West Durham (Hilary Armstrong), then a Transport Minister, said in 2000:
	Few can deny that the volume of traffic that passes through Arundel daily has an impact on the quality of life both of local residents and of those who must use this section of the A27 for their journey.[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 7 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 152WH.]
	There is also an impact on safety. The accident rate in Arundel is twice the national average for the type of road and four times the national average for dual carriageways. I saw that again for myself on Friday when there was yet again an accident at Burpham junction, which is a particularly dangerous section of the existing inadequate road. The Highways Agency estimates that off-line improvements to the A27 at Arundel would prevent 425 accidents and 580 casualties over the next 30 years.

Tim Loughton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he is describing a dire situation on the A27 in his constituency and in mine. According to the Minister's own recent written answer, however, the level of traffic in West Sussex over the next 10 years is predicted to increase by as much as 23 per cent. An increase of a quarter in the congestion that we already have can only lead to those roads being completely gridlocked in the next few years.

Nick Herbert: My hon. Friend makes a good point.
	There is an impact in terms of local pollution and an environmental impact as traffic is pushed away from the A27, rat-running through the South Downs area of outstanding natural beauty. However, I want the Minister to focus on one particular impact of the failure to upgrade the roadthe economic impact on the whole region.
	The Minister will know, as an MP for a costal community in Kent, that while the economy of the south-east is strong, and the economy of West Sussex has traditionally performed well, there are significant areas of deprivation along the south coast, and pockets of long-term unemployment. Poor transport links continue to hamper economic growth and investment in those areas and along the whole south coast. It is estimated, on the basis of figures compiled by Sussex Enterprise and British Chambers of Commerce, that problems with transport infrastructure cost Sussex businesses an average of 29,000 a year. Cumulatively, that is an annual cost of 2 billion to the Sussex economy. The South East England Development Agency highlights the fact that one of the main issues facing the south-east is regeneration. It states:
	Major transport projects of regional significance for regeneration of the coastal South East include the comprehensive improvement of the A27, especially deliverable solutions for Worthing and Arundel.
	The Government's house building plans will also be affected by inadequate transport infrastructure. The South East England regional assembly has proposed that West Sussex should provide 58,000 new homes over the next two decades. The Deputy Prime Minister could impose larger numbers still. As West Sussex county council points out, however,
	any further development would depend on infrastructure capacity being available, especially on the A27.
	That infrastructure is not available at the moment.
	The unhappy history of the Arundel bypass is that broad agreement on it was reached between all parties before the current Government took office. The Department for Transport, the local community, the environmental lobby, the county council and the district council all signed up to what is known as the pink-blue route, seen as minimising damage to the environment. That was for a bypass of just four miles, then costing 23.1 million, which was in the main roads programme. In the Government's 1998 roads review, however, the bypass was de-prioritised. Then, in 2002, the south coast multi-modal study recognised that there was a case for the bypass, and that it should go ahead. It recommended that, along with improvements to Chichester bypass, and consideration of Worthing and Lancing bypasses. Again, however, in 2003, the Secretary of State rejected those on environmental grounds. Since then, successive Ministers told my predecessor that the Government accepted the case for dealing with congestion at Arundel, and that proposals would be brought forward, modified to deal with the environmental objections. Those, however, have been subject to constant delays.
	Most recently, the Minister informed me in September that the Highways Agency was working with the county council to find less environmentally damaging options. He also said that as part of the spending review, he would seek regional advice from SEERA's regional transport board on the priority of any emerging schemes. That means that even if the Minister decided to go ahead on the basis of the regional advice, there would not be a consultation until later this year. The timetable has slipped again.

Peter Bottomley: I think I can speak for the other Members whose constituencies are on the A27. We all know that Arundel should be dealt with first. Worthing is important but probably comes second, along with Chichester. If that saves consultation, it probably saves a year.

Nick Herbert: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's recognition that Arundel should come first, but I think that all the upgrades are important for the economic health of the region.

Andrew Tyrie: What about Chichester?

Nick Herbert: I should of course mention the need for improvement at Chichester. There is already a dual carriageway there, but it needs to be upgraded.
	As the Minister will know, all the regional bodies agree. The South East England Development Agency strongly supports the bypass. It points out that road investment in the south-east per capita is lower than investment in any other UK region. SEERA also supports the bypass. Indeed, it strongly condemned the Secretary of State's rejection of the A27 improvements, which it said was perverse and risked turning coastal Sussex into
	a social and economic backwater.
	The county council is strongly in favour of the bypass. West Sussex Economic Partnership, representing the local business community, is also in favour of it, believing that congestion on the A27 is one of the main barriers to economic regeneration of the coast. Sussex Enterprise supports the upgrades. Last year a poll of its members and other local businesses found that one fifth of businesses would have to consider relocating outside Sussex unless the transport infrastructure, particularly the A27, improved soon. The RAC Foundation has condemned the Government's rejection of the A27 improvements, and says that it believes strongly that the decisions should be reconsidered.
	Let me deal briefly with some of the objections to the bypass. I do not believe that they stand. The first relates to the environmental impact. The original bypass route was not seen as a threat to the environment. Indeed, the Secretary of State's own decision on the preferred route noted that it was supported by English Nature, Sussex Wildlife Trust, the Arun branch of Friends of the Earth and the Sussex branch of the Council for the Protection of Rural England.
	I recognise that road building is unpopular with those who are directly affected, but I hope that the Government's reticence and reluctance to support a scheme is not being influenced by protesters who began to build tree houses as a decision on the bypass seemed imminent. Decisions on these matters must be made democratically, not as a result of direct action by Swampy's friends. I myself would be anxious to ensure that a bypass did not result in the building of new housing between it and Arundel, thus changing the character of the town irrevocably, but I am assured that that could not happen, as the land concerned would be on the flood plain of the River Arun.
	There is also the question of whether the bypass would go through the national park, depending on where the park's southern boundary would be, and indeed on whether such a park is created. I can tell the Minister that the bypass would run not through the downs, but below them. The council points out that the land south of Arundel is not naturally beautiful, as statutorily defined. Indeed, the preferred route does not even run through an area of outstanding natural beauty. The real impact on the national park would occur if traffic continued to be forced up through it and the downland villages. That would constitute an impact on an area of outstanding natural beauty, whether or not the park came into being.
	There is also concern about the visual impact of a bridge crossing the River Arun. France seems to deal with problems of this kind very well, as anyone who has driven over the stunning Millau viaduct over the River Tarn will know. It would be perfectly possible to design a bridge that would complement the stunning view of Arundel and its castle and cathedral, which can be seen from the river bank.
	I mentioned that the Minister had written to me saying that he was taking regional advice. I am concerned about the ranking of the schemes in relation to the regional transport board. The Government have been responsible for the fact that an Arundel scheme has not been developed. The board has told Arundel town council that the fact that a solution to the problems at Arundel has yet to be agreed on, together with the potential timing of any work, explains the relatively low current ranking of Arundel's bypass. We are in a Catch-22 situation. The Minister will not move until he has regional advice, while the region will not give the scheme priority until the proposals are presented. Fortunately, the merits of the bypass are being recognised at the regional level and the sub-regional report submitted to SEERA last week highlights the need to improve the A27.
	In conclusion, I would like to ask the Minister how many times we have to make the case for a bypass and for improvements to the A27. Frankly, the economic case is unarguable and I believe that there is also a strong environmental case. We have been waiting 20 years since the bypass was first agreed by the Government. It has strong local support. Of course, there are some exceptions, but most people back it. In a MORI poll commissioned by the South East England Regional Agency last year, 82 per cent. of residents cited traffic levels in the region as an area of major concernon a par with crime as a key issue. About 72 per cent. indicated a preference for bypasses that would draw traffic around towns. If the Minister is unmoved by the local case, the impact on the regional economy should surely be of concern to him. Now is the time to end the delay and give the go-ahead to improvements to the A27 at Arundel and also at Chichester and Worthing.

Stephen Ladyman: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) on securing the debate and on the passion with which he has put his case. I am delighted to hear that he spends his Sunday evenings watching my brief appearance on television. I regard it as no shame whatever that Dame Ellen beat my time very considerably. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman watched last night and saw that Nigel Mansell did even better, which I put down to the fact that I had lunch with him on Tuesday and gave him a few tips.
	I hear the case that the hon. Gentleman makes and I understand his passion and that of his hon. Friends who have intervened in the debate. I rather suspect that, while I am fortunate enough to hold this office, I will hear more and more questions, address more and more Adjournment debates and have more and more meetings with the relevant Conservative Members as we take the process forward.
	I remind the hon. Gentleman that he said that it has been 20 years since the scheme was first proposed. By my arithmetic, that means that the Government whom he supported ignored it for 12 years. He might like to take that point up with the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley), who is in his place behind him and was a transport Minister for part of that time.

Tim Loughton: Let me offer the Minister a truce. Rather than having lots of meetings with me and other West Sussex Members or face Adjournment debates at this late hour, will he agree to come down to West Sussex, as I have requested before, and see for himself at first hand the congestion and problems that occur on the A27 in Worthing, Lancing, Chichester and Arundel? I, for one, would refrain from detaining him here late at night if only he would offer to come and meet some local people who have to face those problems every day of every year.

Stephen Ladyman: I would not rule out visiting the area at some point in the future, but I would like to see the regional advice first and then I will need to prioritise the various visits that I make around the country. I will certainly come down at some point, but I am not promising to do so in the immediate future.

Peter Bottomley: I am grateful to the Minister, who is a good fellow, for giving way. Twenty years ago, I had not yet become the Minister for Roads and Traffic; my predecessor was in office. When I was a Minister and saw what happened at Crossbush, I asked my officials whether it would be right to build the Crossbush section. They said yes, so we did it at Clapham and Patching. I suggest that the Minister ask his officials whether it would be right to build the Arundel bypass and then get on with relieving Chichester, Worthing, Shoreham and Lancing. He might then find that the ratio was right. In my day, Ministers said, Is it necessary, is it right, will it work? Let's do it.

Stephen Ladyman: That is no different from what Ministers say these days. In fact, that was the reason why we commissioned the south coast multi-modal study, which the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs mentioned. Our continuing strategy is based on that study. I would ask Conservative Members to acknowledge at least that the area through which the A27 runs is environmentally sensitive. Indeed, for the greater part of its length through the two counties, the A27 is either inside or forms the boundary of the South Downs area of outstanding natural beauty. That was the principal reason why we asked the Highways Agency to work in partnership with local authorities and statutory environmental bodies to identify less environmentally damaging, alternative schemes to those recommended by the SoCoMMS report.
	Good progress is being made on all these proposals. The first outcome of the partnership in West Sussex was the public consultation on a package of transport proposalssome road-based and some public transport-basedfor the city of Chichester. The public exhibition in November and December 2004 setting out the proposals was attended by 2,600 people and the Highways Agency received nearly 10,000 responses. It has completed its analysis of them and is finalising the scheme assessment, taking on board the views expressed during the consultation.
	In East Sussex, the public inquiry into the Southerham to Beddingham improvement to the east of Lewes ended last month. The inspector's report is expected early next year, so I am severely limited in the detail that I can go into, but subject to the inquiry's outcome, that scheme is still on target for a programmed commencement of works in 200607. Following the SoCoMMS decision, other ongoing work includes major studies of traffic issues at both Arundel and Worthing. It is generally agreed that there is no simple solution to the problems in those towns.
	As the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs said, the A27 separates the old town centre of Arundel, including the cathedral and the castle, from the more recent, mainly residential development to the south of the town. Approximately four out of five vehicles on the A27 at Arundel are through trafficin other words, both their origin and destination is outside the town. On the other hand, the surrounding countryside is environmentally sensitive and borders the South Downs area of outstanding natural beauty. There are also other designated sites near Arundel, so any outer bypass of the town would seriously affect that landscape. That was the case for the proposals recommended by SoCoMMS.
	At Worthing, the trunk road route passes through densely developed urban areas, and I appreciate the problems that that brings to the town. However, the proposals recommended by SoCoMMS consisted of a series of four tunnels each up to 2 km long, with major road developments in betweenall located within the South Downs area of outstanding natural beauty. Not only was the scheme environmentally damaging, the cost of the tunnels alone would have made it unaffordable. I remind Members present that I recently called for a review of the Stonehenge tunnel when that scheme's cost rose to 470 million. The Stonehenge scheme involved just one 2 km tunnel, not four.
	The problems at Worthing are exacerbated not only by the dense urban areas but, as I said earlier, by the fact that the boundary of the South Downs area of outstanding natural beauty comes right up to the urban area of Worthing and Lancing. It is therefore proving to be very difficult to find an acceptable working solution to the problems associated with the A27 at that location.

Andrew Tyrie: I agree that the Minister is a good chap, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) said a moment ago, but I really do think that he is slightly off the rails now. He has said four times that the proposed road improvements are close to an area of outstanding natural beauty and that they might cause environmental damage. Surely we need some joined-up government, particularly in the Chichester area but throughout the region. Will the Minister speak to his opposite numbers and do something about the huge amount of house building that is going on, which is creating the demand on the road and generating the pressure? One lot are building the houses while the other lot are saying that we cannot improve the road because it is near an area of outstanding natural beauty.

Stephen Ladyman: I assure the hon. Gentleman that in respect of all the assessments that I have mentioned this evening, I have asked the Highways Agency, in undertaking them, to take account of any proposed house building in the area. The fact that development will take place in the area will be taken into account when the road building decisions are made.
	I want to say a little more about the scheme in East Sussex that complements the major Southerham to Beddingham improvement scheme. In line with our announcement on the multi-modal study, the Highways Agency has been working in partnership with the county council and the statutory environmental bodies to identify longer-term improvements to the single carriageway length of trunk road between Beddingham, east of Lewes, and Polegate, north of Eastbourne, including possible bypasses at Selmeston and Wilmington. Again, that is an environmentally sensitive area and it is proving difficult to find solutions.
	On the points that the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs made about the regional funding allocation process, we expect to receive by the end of January 2006 the South East England Regional Assembly's advice on which transport schemes should be given funding priority.
	With the exception of the Southerham to Beddingham improvement scheme, which is already committed to, all the A27 improvement schemes that I have mentioned so farat Chichester, Arundel, Worthing, Selmeston and Wilmingtonhave been included in the prioritisation exercise. It seems to me, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman would do well to make his representations in the region, to raise the priority of the proposals. He says that the schemes are strongly supported, but is the support strong enough for the region to put them into the top priority category of the schemes that it wishes to move forward most urgently?

Peter Bone: When the regional priorities are identified, is the Minister undertaking to deliver them?

Stephen Ladyman: I have made it clear that the region offers advice, and we do not expect to accept its advice absolutely and always. There may be reasons why the hon. Gentleman himself might not always want us to accept the advice of a region, but to judge it to be flawedand we have reserved that right. However, we have said that where a region does have a consensual position on which schemes should take the highest priority, and the region and the Government office seem to have done a good job in consulting everybody and taking their views into account, we would certainly pay very strong regard to that adviceand I would be surprised if we deviated very far from it.
	In addition to the advice, we are awaiting the inquiry inspector's report on the Southerham to Beddingham stretch. The Highways Agency is also expecting to report back on the consultation on the improvements at Chichester early next year, and a little later it expects to report on its studies at Arundel, Worthing, Selmeston and Wilmington. We will consider the way forward for all those schemes in the light of the advice received from the South East England region about its priorities.
	The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs raised housing as a specific issue, and it was also raised in an intervention. I said that the Highways Agency had been asked to take it into account in its reports back to me. Complementary to that process, the agency is currently working with local authorities as they produce their local development frameworks to ensure that transport issues are fully addressed, and that integrated transport proposals are included in each authority's plan.
	In addition to the major improvements, the Highways Agency has a three-year rolling programme of maintenance and smaller-scale improvements to the A27. The agency has just completed modifications to the Stockbridge roundabout on the Chichester bypass, reducing the diameter of the roundabout and improving the approaches, which will improve the flow of traffic through the junction.
	At Worthing, signals have been provided at the Grove Lodge roundabout. I know that there has been some local disquiet since the signals were installed, but early indications are that traffic flow through the junction is better.

Several hon. Members: rose

Stephen Ladyman: I think that I should give way to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), as he represents part of Worthing.

Tim Loughton: The Minister mentions the traffic changes on the Grove Lodge roundabout. I carried out a survey recently among residents who use that roundabout, and overwhelmingly they say that the changes have increased the problems on that stretch of the A27. If he is saying that they, along with the other roundabout adjustments at Chichester, are his panaceas for the congestion on the A27, he is sorely underestimating the scale of the problem. When was the last time he came down to the A27 in West Sussex and saw it for himself?

Stephen Ladyman: The word panacea never passed my lips. Those small-scale schemes are simply some short-term measures by which we are trying to improve things while we try to move forward on the wider agenda that all the Opposition Members here are keen to promote.

Andrew Tyrie: Does the Minister realise that the idea that the changes to the Stockbridge roundabout will improve the situation whereby a large chunk of my constituency is effectively cut off every day by a huge traffic jam almost an hour long leading into Chichester will be greeted by my constituents with a hollow laugh? What we need is some real road improvements.

Stephen Ladyman: I do not deny the possibility that the hon. Gentleman's constituency may need some major road improvements. My point is that we are making some short-term improvements while we work out the way forward. That is a not unreasonable position to take. We have made several short-term improvements throughout the area.
	The proposals and the major road improvements, which have been backed by significant investment, are an indication of the Government's policy of trying to develop sustainable solutions to the transport problems of the south coast corridor. I understand the need for economic regeneration and accessibility to those towns and I understand the frustration of the constituents of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. I undertake to do my best to keep the issues moving forward[Interruption.] I will, as the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) suggests, ask whether it is a good thing that we do this and, if so, on what time scale and how fast can we get on with it. If we can make a case, if the scheme is value for money and if the region agrees that it is among its priorities for progress, I am confident that we can get this sorted outunlike the Government of whom he was a member.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.